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.
I question why after a big overhaul of the bridge at University they did not include the bike lanes there.

I question city planners that say changing a 4 lane road to 2 lanes won't be a problem when I see the effect that has everyday on Victoria St S between Walnut and Belmont.

I question the planners who said Ira Needles would be okay at 2 lanes of traffic for 20 years.

I am for bike lanes and I like the plans for uptown. I like the idea of a Waterloo crossing of the expressway, costs aside I would rather see a dedicated bike bridge across the expressway, rather than go this diet route again.

Just one man's opinion.
(05-26-2015, 06:26 PM)Drake Wrote: [ -> ]I question why after a big overhaul of the bridge at University they did not include the bike lanes there.

I question city planners that say changing a 4 lane road to 2 lanes won't be a problem when I see the effect that has everyday on Victoria St S between Walnut and Belmont.

I question the planners who said Ira Needles would be okay at 2 lanes of traffic for 20 years.

I am for bike lanes and I like the plans for uptown. I like the idea of a Waterloo crossing of the expressway, costs aside I would rather see a dedicated bike bridge across the expressway, rather than go this diet route again.

Just one man's opinion.

Victoria St S between Walnut and Belmont has never been 4 lanes. 
I don't know why that stretch of Lexington is even four lanes, the traffic never seemed to have that much volume when I was riding up to a job in the industrial park north of Conestoga Mall a few years ago. People just seem to drive excessively fast along there only to hit the red at Davenport or Weber. A 2 lane road with a centre turning lane and segregated cycling lanes would be safer for all road users, I think. It makes sense to have a cycling route use Lexington since it connects to the trail through that park (hillside?) and that trail eventually takes users all the way to uptown. I would love to see a dedicated pedstrian/cyclist bridge closer to King Street or something but that seems a lot more unlikely to happen than a Lexington road diet.
I agree that the plan for Lexington should include segregated cycling lanes. If they're getting rid of 2 lanes of traffic I don't see why this couldn't be done since the right-of-way is certainly large enough. I'm much more likely to bike if the lanes are protected.
If not segregated lanes I could live with a large multi-use asphalt trail along the sides of a 2 lane road that has a median turning lane.
(05-26-2015, 06:26 PM)Drake Wrote: [ -> ]I question why after a big overhaul of the bridge at University they did not include the bike lanes there.

I question city planners that say changing a 4 lane road to 2 lanes won't be a problem when I see the effect that has everyday on Victoria St S between Walnut and Belmont.

I question the planners who said Ira Needles would be okay at 2 lanes of traffic for 20 years.

I am for bike lanes and I like the plans for uptown. I like the idea of a Waterloo crossing of the expressway, costs aside I would rather see a dedicated bike bridge across the expressway, rather than go this diet route again.

Just one man's opinion.

It's a reasonable question to ask, whether it makes sense to go from 4 lanes to 2. And the answer can be had by looking at traffic volume. Lexington has absolutely nothing like Victoria's traffic volume.

I sat out at Lexington overpass today performing a bike count, and saw what I've seen along this stretch having cycled and driven it a couple of thousand times: very light, very sparse automotive traffic with lots of speeders. Typically, clumps of about a dozen vehicles, followed by as much a minute or two of wide open space. And that's in the busy direction. At rush hour.

So I'd say it's very reasonable, in this location. Other locations? That's a different question.
@ Panamaniac: Agreed, I used Victoria St S as an example of a bottleneck created when 4 lanes are reduced to two. Yes I agree the volume on Lexington is not the volume on Victoria. Not even close.

@ Zanate What was your bike count?
From the National Post:

Why it's time to repeal the ridiculous bylaws that ban cyclists from sidewalks.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-commen...-sidewalks

Excerpt: In most of the US state law allows everyone to bike on the sidewalks [also in Japan and the Netherlands]
Mississauga is poised to allow cyclists on suburban sidewalks. It makes sense in areas where not many people travel on foot. It really doesn't make any sense in dense urban areas where there is congestion even just some of the time on the sidewalk. In those areas, too, motorized traffic isn't traveling much faster than cyclists can, and so it's not as dangerous as trying to bicycle in mixed traffic on a stroad where cars may be passing you at eighty kilometres per hour.

Notwithstanding the fact that this author seems to be an avid cyclist, usually people who say "cyclists, get on the sidewalk" are principally motorists whose priorities are to get the street cleared for them rather than have to pay any attention to more vulnerable users. And they obviously could not care less about the people on foot who will be endangered and inconvenienced if their five feet of the right-of-way is expected to accommodate bicycles as well.
(06-22-2015, 03:32 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ]From the National Post:

Why it's time to repeal the ridiculous bylaws that ban cyclists from sidewalks.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-commen...-sidewalks

Excerpt: In most of the US state law allows everyone to bike on the sidewalks [also in Japan and the Netherlands]

In Japan, you can only cycle on a sidewalk if it is explicitly signed so.
http://www.japancycling.org/v2/info/biking.shtml

That said, this law is not enforced and people ride bicycles on sidewalks all the time.  Quite shocking in super-law-abiding Japan.
Naturally if you ride on the sidewalk you better be sauntering, something like 10Km/h tops.
The devil is always in the details. From TFA: 

"some [US] municipalities don’t allow them in areas of high pedestrian use, like parts of downtowns" presumably because of concern for the safety of pedestrians.

"but must yield the right-of-way to them and give audible warning of approach" a requirement that many cyclists ignore to the peril of pedestrians.

"Yes, some pedestrians have died as a result of collisions with cyclists on sidewalks... Studies show that a mix of pedestrians and cyclists presents less risk to life and limb than a mix of cyclists and motorized vehicles." Perhaps. But that's hardly justification for cyclists to use sidewalks irresponsibly, thus threatening pedestrians.

"My rules for sidewalk riding includes no racing, yielding to pedestrians, warning of my approach, checking every crossing, street and driveway and being willing to walk if there’s congestion." Good rules. Too bad few others obey them.

"I saw one in Georgetown, Ont., recently riding against the traffic, zipping on and off the sidewalk and trying to text at the same time. Here’s an area where enforcement should get more priority rather than sticking it to adults who dare to ride sidewalks carefully and avoid conflicts with pedestrians."
Absolutely. But how often are cyclists getting "stuck" by law enforcement, legitimately or otherwise. And yes, I support the same sanctions against distracted or reckless pedestrians. 

By all means let's have an adult conversation about sharing sidewalks responsibly. But unlike the letter writer, don't just assume that sidewalks are there for the taking and that everyone will behave responsibly. 

P.S. re "stop the harassment of safety-conscious adult cyclists by over-zealous police and bylaw officers", how often does this happen in this region? As a pedestrian I've seen (and experienced) lots of harassment by safety-unconcious cyclists here, in the US and even in the EU, yet I've never seen any "harassment" by the people in blue against them. Is this simply a strawman?

Fire away Wink
The /r/Toronto subreddit is rife with posts that pit cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians against each other. People exiting transit getting winged by cyclists is an almost daily post, yikes.
(06-23-2015, 05:53 AM)ookpik Wrote: [ -> ]Is this simply a strawman?

In the case that this question wasn't rhetorical, yes, it is. I have met cyclists who have been ticketed for either riding on the sidewalk or failing to observe traffic signals, and I've seen cyclists interacting with police presumably being either ticketed or warned*, but I think it's ludicrous to claim "harassment" by police of cyclists. Cyclists are generally not law-abiding, just as motorists are not generally law-abiding. I've rarely heard the claim that the latter, when ticketed for practices that are illegal but common practice (rolling stops, failure to yield right-of-way, speeding, distracted driving, so on and on), are suffering harassment.

*The last time I personally observed an interaction between police and a cyclist breaking the law, a cyclist was traveling along a relatively busy sidewalk adjacent to a street which had painted (unprotected) bicycle lanes. A policeman on foot who observed this yelled at him to use the bike lanes, and was ignored.
Right now the standard sidewalk being built is a 1500 mm width. In older neighborhoods the sidewalks are even more narrow. That is very narrow if you consider two travelers in opposite directions passing each other. That space is only enough for two people walking side by side. Anyone traveling with equipment such as a stroller, wagons, tricycles, a dog on a leash, a bike, a scooter, a walker, a wheelchair, or an e-bike potentially take up much more room. When you consider the speed differential bikes sometimes travel at, safety has to be a concern.

Of course one would argue that bikes on streets are a safety concern for cyclists too.

If we could convince governments to increase the width of non-car traveling space I'd feel better about allowing bikes on sidewalks.