(03-22-2019, 01:12 PM)timc Wrote: [ -> ]What has been built is far better than what was there before. But I have to wonder, is there enough width to the bridge as it is to build something more appropriate?
There are a lot of situations like that involving a lot of different things in Waterloo Region. What's troubling for me is that just because it is better than what was there before doesn't mean it's good. It just means that what was there before was that bad.
I would say this is NOT better than what was there before - before, there was no indication that cycling could be considered safe here, so nobody would try. Now, it seems to appear to be safe - when it actually isn't. I consider that more dangerous.
Genuinely, what would be best practices in this situation? Any situation with right-turning traffic crossing a bike lane is dangerous for cyclists.
The current situation is uncomfortable due to speed of traffic on both sides. The lane, however, is very visible due to the markings (although they have their own risk in rain), and cyclists are likely only to have drivers approach them and cross paths from behind which increases the visibility of the cyclist to the driver and lowers risk of the driver hitting the cyclist by keeping the cyclists in the zone the driver is paying closest attention to.
The usual response to traffic speed is to take steps to reduce it. Speed bumps are probably not a good measure as it shifts driver focus toward the speed bump and away from, say, other cyclists on the road. Narrowing drive lanes may be counterproductive as it would encourage vehicles to crowd the bike lane. Changing the ramp to a T-intersection forcing a right turn for exiting vehicles would slow traffic down, but it would also mean that cyclists are far more likely to end up in a vehicles blindspot prior to them turning and potentially lead to the cyclist being hit. A fully separated lane with barriers would mean that traffic would have to exit in a single spot and possibly lead to the same problem with blindspots.
I think ultimately a separated lane is appropriate here, due to traffic speeds. The exit lane should be removed - Northfield isn't an expressway and doesn't need one. Instead, the bike lane should curve out away from the drive lane as it approaches the exit and then cross a short slip at a more oblique angle on a raised crossing. This forces traffic to slow as they approach the turn, but also keeps cyclists and pedestrians in their view the entire time. Something like this (pardon the awful MSPaint).
![[Image: otLC5jx.png]](https://i.imgur.com/otLC5jx.png)
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipI...sc=gKdjZPI
Spectacular reporting by CTV. I think this is going to be an important news article.
On the one hand, they show the terrifying conditions biking there, they show cycling advocates, fearless cyclists saying they won't cycle there, on the other hand, you have engineers claiming they see NO problem with this design.
I said in a few tweets, the starting point we must achieve is getting council to instruct staff that this is unacceptable, that this type of thing should never be built, it's broken, it's garbage, it negatively impacts cycling in our region, when regional staff model cycling, they see putting this infra in doesn't stimulate cycling, so they use that to argue against cycling infra, when people scream about "waste" when cycle lanes are going in, they point to this as a reason that cycling infra is a waste.
Until council will instruct the engineers NOT to do this, we won't make progress, because the engineers have no problem with this.
ATAC even seems to struggle with this frankly.
(03-22-2019, 03:46 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]Genuinely, what would be best practices in this situation? Any situation with right-turning traffic crossing a bike lane is dangerous for cyclists.
The current situation is uncomfortable due to speed of traffic on both sides. The lane, however, is very visible due to the markings (although they have their own risk in rain), and cyclists are likely only to have drivers approach them and cross paths from behind which increases the visibility of the cyclist to the driver and lowers risk of the driver hitting the cyclist by keeping the cyclists in the zone the driver is paying closest attention to.
The usual response to traffic speed is to take steps to reduce it. Speed bumps are probably not a good measure as it shifts driver focus toward the speed bump and away from, say, other cyclists on the road. Narrowing drive lanes may be counterproductive as it would encourage vehicles to crowd the bike lane. Changing the ramp to a T-intersection forcing a right turn for exiting vehicles would slow traffic down, but it would also mean that cyclists are far more likely to end up in a vehicles blindspot prior to them turning and potentially lead to the cyclist being hit. A fully separated lane with barriers would mean that traffic would have to exit in a single spot and possibly lead to the same problem with blindspots.
I think ultimately a separated lane is appropriate here, due to traffic speeds. The exit lane should be removed - Northfield isn't an expressway and doesn't need one. Instead, the bike lane should curve out away from the drive lane as it approaches the exit and then cross a short slip at a more oblique angle on a raised crossing. This forces traffic to slow as they approach the turn, but also keeps cyclists and pedestrians in their view the entire time. Something like this (pardon the awful MSPaint).
I know others have suggested a MUT between the LRT tracks, which is probably the most feasible option when the LRT was being constructed. It's an MTO bridge and removing the slip ramps is non-negotiable with the province, mainly because they seem to be unaware that there can be roads that aren't expressways.
(03-22-2019, 01:37 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]I would say this is NOT better than what was there before - before, there was no indication that cycling could be considered safe here, so nobody would try. Now, it seems to appear to be safe - when it actually isn't. I consider that more dangerous.
This is a really, really important point. People rely on these things, and identify them as being safe. This clearly is not.
(03-22-2019, 08:31 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1642701&binId=1.1147261&playlistPageNum=1#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=gKdjZPI
Spectacular reporting by CTV. I think this is going to be an important news article.
On the one hand, they show the terrifying conditions biking there, they show cycling advocates, fearless cyclists saying they won't cycle there, on the other hand, you have engineers claiming they see NO problem with this design.
I said in a few tweets, the starting point we must achieve is getting council to instruct staff that this is unacceptable, that this type of thing should never be built, it's broken, it's garbage, it negatively impacts cycling in our region, when regional staff model cycling, they see putting this infra in doesn't stimulate cycling, so they use that to argue against cycling infra, when people scream about "waste" when cycle lanes are going in, they point to this as a reason that cycling infra is a waste.
Until council will instruct the engineers NOT to do this, we won't make progress, because the engineers have no problem with this.
ATAC even seems to struggle with this frankly.
This is stunning to me. I'm not an engineer, I don't pretend to be, I couldn't do their job. But really, how can you say there is no issue here? Try riding on it.
Do we know when/if dropbike will become available this year?
(03-26-2019, 01:02 PM)PhilippAchtel Wrote: [ -> ]Do we know when/if dropbike will become available this year?
If? Yes. AFAIK all the agreements are signed, and they're working out the details of where the stations will be.
When? Not sure, I know drop bike would like to launch ASAP.
Very eager to learn the service area/station locations.
Me too!
I do hope they were aware of all of the bike lane projects planned.
Is anyone planning to attend the public meeting in Cambridge on April 1st? King Street is being reconstructed through Preston.
The thread title is 'Cycling', whether uni-, bi-, tri-, or otherwise.