Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: Cycling in Waterloo Region
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(11-24-2020, 05:54 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-24-2020, 05:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, leaving aside local infra, e-scooters are an interesting issue...

I know a lot of people love to hate them (including my parents) they call them DUI scooters or some nonsense. But the fact is they provide meaningful mobility for a lot of people in our community. People who lose their license (and it is hard to do) clearly should not be driving, but still deserve the same mobility as everyone else. Our transit system is not great for all people, and not everyone wants to cycle, I have no problem with people using them as a mobility device. But because of the people who usually ride them, there is a lot of prejudice.

I don't care who's using them (and I am specifically referring to the electric motorcycle or Vespa-style scooters and not to the sit-down mobility scooters) -- I simply think they are too fast for MUTs and sidewalks. The mobility scooters, on the other hand, tend to have far more modest speeds.

An M licence is probably not the answer. But maybe a written test combined with vehicle licensing would be good.

I too am referring to the electric mopeds limited to 500 watts and 32km/h. I honestly see no problem not licensing them. I've not been shy about saying I don't believe drivers are in any meaningful way licensed, so I certainly see no reason to license riders of escooters.

If you are thinking they need a written test to learn the rules, I don't think G licensed drivers are any more likely than anyone else to know the rules of the road (what percentage of drivers in the city had "roundabouts" on their written test...is it even on the current provincial test?). Escooter riders, like drivers, follow the rules that they feel are convenient and safe for them to follow...a written test won't change that. Better behaviour is best achieved through better design, and consistent uniform (read: automated) enforcement.
(11-24-2020, 05:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]Highlighting that phrase from Coke's post ... one frustration I have on our trails/MUTs that many of the "e-bikes" that fly past are not actually e-bikes (which need to have functional pedals) but e-scooters. And that's completely apart from our local MUT design issues.
e-scooters and e-bikes are considered the same under the HTA and are limited to 32km/hr. e-scooters are supposed to have functional pedals, though they are not pedal assisted, but nobody with this type of bike actually pedals them. By the way, I have ridden my e-bike on the IHT at near top speed and have had people on regular road bikes zoom past me at much higher speed. E-bikes on MUTs are not a problem, inconsiderate people on any kind of bike can be a problem.
(11-24-2020, 06:11 PM)Acitta Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-24-2020, 05:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]Highlighting that phrase from Coke's post ... one frustration I have on our trails/MUTs that many of the "e-bikes" that fly past are not actually e-bikes (which need to have functional pedals) but e-scooters. And that's completely apart from our local MUT design issues.
e-scooters and e-bikes are considered the same under the HTA and are limited to 32km/hr. e-scooters are supposed to have functional pedals, though they are not pedal assisted, but nobody with this type of bike actually pedals them. By the way, I have ridden my e-bike on the IHT at near top speed and have had people on regular road bikes zoom past me at much higher speed. E-bikes on MUTs are not a problem, inconsiderate people on any kind of bike can be a problem.

Fixed that for you.

Also, yeah, people usually don't pedal them, although I was passed by a guy a few days ago pedaling an escooter on Queen St. was pretty funny
(11-24-2020, 06:23 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-24-2020, 06:11 PM)Acitta Wrote: [ -> ]e-scooters and e-bikes are considered the same under the HTA and are limited to 32km/hr. e-scooters are supposed to have functional pedals, though they are not pedal assisted, but nobody with this type of bike actually pedals them. By the way, I have ridden my e-bike on the IHT at near top speed and have had people on regular road bikes zoom past me at much higher speed. E-bikes on MUTs are not a problem, inconsiderate people on any kind of bike can be a problem.

Fixed that for you.

Also, yeah, people usually don't pedal them, although I was passed by a guy a few days ago pedaling an escooter on Queen St. was pretty funny
I don't know why people buy those type. My pedal-assisted e-bike is really easy to pedal and I can carry more stuff on it than any of those scooters.
(11-24-2020, 06:28 PM)Acitta Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-24-2020, 06:23 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Fixed that for you.

Also, yeah, people usually don't pedal them, although I was passed by a guy a few days ago pedaling an escooter on Queen St. was pretty funny
I don't know why people buy those type. My pedal-assisted e-bike is really easy to pedal and I can carry more stuff on it than any of those scooters.

I don't think practical reasons are a part of it. I mean, I'd make the same comment about people in pickup trucks, but unlike pickup trucks, escooters cause very little externalized harm to everyone else.
(11-24-2020, 05:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-24-2020, 05:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]Highlighting that phrase from Coke's post ... one frustration I have on our trails/MUTs that many of the "e-bikes" that fly past are not actually e-bikes (which need to have functional pedals) but e-scooters. And that's completely apart from our local MUT design issues.

Yes, leaving aside local infra, e-scooters are an interesting issue...

I know a lot of people love to hate them (including my parents) they call them DUI scooters or some nonsense. But the fact is they provide meaningful mobility for a lot of people in our community. People who lose their license (and it is hard to do) clearly should not be driving, but still deserve the same mobility as everyone else. Our transit system is not great for all people, and not everyone wants to cycle, I have no problem with people using them as a mobility device. But because of the people who usually ride them, there is a lot of prejudice.

Which brings me to regulations.  The regulations around ebikes are being changed and likely most escooters will no longer be classified as ebikes (and thus will require an M-L license). This I think is absurd, and will do nothing but give police an excuse to target the type of people who ride these scooters. The only reason it is being considered is because of the group of people who are targeted. Can you imagine the letters to the editor, the screaming, the tantrums that would ensue if for example, Ontario started requiring you to have a D license to operate a 2-ton pickup. I don't think it's unreasonable, it's a huge vehicle that causes a huge amount of harm on our road, it should be licensed more strongly (G licenses are from a vending machine really). But if that change happened, there would be hell to pay, because the people who drive 2-ton pickups---leaving aside their personality---have wealth and power. People who ride escooters largely do not.

So, it suffices to say I am disappointed, I do think they could do to be regulated differently, while I don't mind them in bike lanes, I don't really like them on the trails or in parks, but I also understand on a road like Victoria, it would be extremely dangerous not to be on the trail. It's just one more way in which our transportation system fails groups of people who are easy to ignore.
If you lose your licence for impaired driving and are on a prohibition, that includes ebikes. Any vehicle other than muscular.  Even a riding lawn mower is prohibited....
It looks promising (at the article level), though the devil is in the details. It won't turn Kitchener into an Amsterdam but it should make bicycle-based transportation considerably easier (and safer).
(12-07-2020, 12:17 AM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]It looks promising (at the article level), though the devil is in the details. It won't turn Kitchener into an Amsterdam but it should make bicycle-based transportation considerably easier (and safer).

That's definitely true. On the whole, I think it's a step forward, but I have some reservations about the details, which I've already shared to the city. I know others will disagree with me, but one that stands out to me is is the two-way cycling infrastructure on one side of a road, which I'm not a fan of. Implementations I have seen just don't seem safe to me, though I'd gladly see statistics in a N. American context to contradict that view.

In general, this comes back to a general criticism I have of how cycling infrastructure is dealt with here. It's too ad hoc and it seems that every time a new project comes out, they are reinventing the wheel. What that means for road users is that there is no consistency in the experience. A large part of road safety is avoiding surprises to road users, so that they can anticipate and plan. Part of that is creating a consistent streetscape.

What we have now is on some roads there are MUTs separated from the road like Fischer-Hallman. There are separated two-way lanes like on Erb, there are curb-separated and painted lanes like on Lexington, but sometimes they randomly end. In some places there are bike boxes, but mostly there aren't. Some lanes have bollards, some have concrete. You get the picture.

The province has design guidelines for roadways for a reason. And we generally have a fairly consistent system across the province as a result. There are aspects of those guidelines which should maybe be changed, but the consistency is a good thing. It's well past the time that we have a more coherent approach to cycling infrastructure design, if not at the provincial level, at least regionally. The fact that a single plan has so many different approaches in it is not particularly encouraging to me.
I think that's a good point ^... avoid surprises. I could easily imagine a MV driver stating, "the partition ends completely, there are no more street markings...I did not expect him/her to be in that space."...avoidable situation
@jamincan, I left very similar comments on the EngageWR forms...

I'm curious about what changes are being made on Ontario. There is certainly no room for 2 way traffic, on street parking, and bicycle lanes, yet it sounded like the Legacy Greens owner was happy about the compromise on those... As it is now, there isn't really even room for 2 way traffic with the on street parking.
(12-07-2020, 02:14 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]@jamincan, I left very similar comments on the EngageWR forms...

I'm curious about what changes are being made on Ontario. There is certainly no room for 2 way traffic, on street parking, and bicycle lanes, yet it sounded like the Legacy Greens owner was happy about the compromise on those... As it is now, there isn't really even room for 2 way traffic with the on street parking.

The Ontario "compromise" was cancelling Ontario St. North/East of King.

Hardly a compromise, as usual killing cycling infra to make exclusive space for cars.

I was extremely disappointed, frankly, hurt by Jordan (Legacy Green's owner) opposition to the project, she was not in favour of any of it, but wanted to know how to kill Ontario St...which she succeeded in.

I won't be shopping anywhere where the owner explicitly opposed my safety in the city.
(12-07-2020, 02:18 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-07-2020, 02:14 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]@jamincan, I left very similar comments on the EngageWR forms...

I'm curious about what changes are being made on Ontario. There is certainly no room for 2 way traffic, on street parking, and bicycle lanes, yet it sounded like the Legacy Greens owner was happy about the compromise on those... As it is now, there isn't really even room for 2 way traffic with the on street parking.

The Ontario "compromise" was cancelling Ontario St. North/East of King.

Hardly a compromise, as usual killing cycling infra to make exclusive space for cars.

I was extremely disappointed, frankly, hurt by Jordan (Legacy Green's owner) opposition to the project, she was not in favour of any of it, but wanted to know how to kill Ontario St...which she succeeded in.

I won't be shopping anywhere where the owner explicitly opposed my safety in the city.

I see the summary of changes now on Engage. Quite disappointing indeed, but if I had to sacrifice any single block of the project to make the rest of it go ahead, it would probably be that block on Ontario. I would be optimistic that they used "deferred" as their choice of language, but I've long given up on trusting anything other than actions.

I quite infrequently shopped at Legacy Greens, but this will certainly be a consideration in visiting in the future.
(12-07-2020, 03:31 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-07-2020, 02:18 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]The Ontario "compromise" was cancelling Ontario St. North/East of King.

Hardly a compromise, as usual killing cycling infra to make exclusive space for cars.

I was extremely disappointed, frankly, hurt by Jordan (Legacy Green's owner) opposition to the project, she was not in favour of any of it, but wanted to know how to kill Ontario St...which she succeeded in.

I won't be shopping anywhere where the owner explicitly opposed my safety in the city.

I see the summary of changes now on Engage. Quite disappointing indeed, but if I had to sacrifice any single block of the project to make the rest of it go ahead, it would probably be that block on Ontario. I would be optimistic that they used "deferred" as their choice of language, but I've long given up on trusting anything other than actions.

I quite infrequently shopped at Legacy Greens, but this will certainly be a consideration in visiting in the future.

Yeah, I mean, I live on Ontario, so selfishly, it affects me a great deal, but the loss of Duke St. was bigger, and also the loss of the Water St. cul-de-sac is a real shame, and I mostly only walk that way.

I'm frankly, angry about that for reasons I let council know today (that neighbourhood is toxic, it consistently kills active transportation projects).

But ultimately, even with these compromises, the project is worth doing, and got passed today unmodified with a near unanimous vote (only 'Johnny Gaz' dissenting), and hopefully it will pass at city council next week.

In terms of being labeled "deferred" I think it's wishful thinking, a "deferred" project is basically killed...it would take an enormous effort to bring it back, and frankly, that just isn't going to happen for a small piece. I am taking a long term bet on that project actually which is to say that in 10 years there won't be a bike lane on Ontario between King and Duke.

Edit: I should mention on Duke St., staff seem optimistic that it will actually go through eventually. Frankly, I don't know where they find their optimism, but given they should know better than I, that is some hope for optimism for Duke at least.
I didn't watch the virtual meeting, so I was unaware of what was happening with the region's portion of Duke, though I can see now it's obviously missing from the current plans. If anyone knows where I'll be able to find this meeting that would be appreciated (I seem to be saying this a lot lately).

I actually misread the map legend on the earlier information package, and thought a MUT was planned for David St, but it's actually a "neighbourhood bikeway". This is my fault for misreading this originally, but still very disappointing. The first time I took my partner out cycling we tried to take David St to the IHT, and she aborted by the time we got to the stop signs. From then on we had to go through Victoria park to the IHT, which takes about 7 minutes longer trying to not run children over. So it's very disappointing that what is essentially the only connection to the IHT aside from going through the park is listed as "All Ages and Abilities" when I have an adult uncomfortable riding on it. The IHT and Spur Line connections are really going to be my primary uses of this grid and David St and Duke St really complicate both of those now...

A question for anyone who attended the virtual meeting: Was there any mention of this MUT between Victoria Park and the Mike Wagner green? (Light blue on this map)

[Image: ykd9p5q.png]