(09-10-2015, 10:55 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Bike people want bike lanes. Car people want car lanes. It's never going to change. Yes you can voice your bicycle opinion but when it's a minority, what do you expect?
I'm not sure how this contributes meaningfully to the discussion, except to suggest that I'm a bike person and I'm in the minority and I should live with the status quo. Which is both depressingly pessimistic and insultingly reductionist.
A lot of the discussion around Westheights has become a "bike vs. car" debate, when I don't think that's what the plan is about. It's a traffic calming plan that attempted to look objectively at the use of the street, balance a 6% parking utilization rate with a cycling master plan decision to make Westheights part of Kitchener's bike network, and proposed a way to slow traffic down and make the street easier to deal with as a person on foot or on bike, while maintaining more than enough parking for residents.
The cycling aspect has been the target of a "fairness" attack because local residents value the convenience of their curbside parking but haven't been able to show a need for it. Unfortunately, there haven't been enough voices from other stakeholders: residents on other streets, parents of kids who use the schools here, and people like me who would like to see our cycling network complete and usable by many more people than can do so now.
And I'm not saying the streetside residents who object to this plan shouldn't have a voice in this! They're obviously stakeholders as well. But I don't think they've been forthright that the real source of their objections has been that this plan interferes with their private use of this public space.
I really do hesitate to step into this. I will express no opinion on the merits of the Westheights plan, having received the countervailing positions second-hand.
However, I can say that I have promoted my own neighbourhood as a facilitator district for bicycle flow. In issues not restricted to the "bike vs. car" debate , I feel the sides should make efforts to empathize with each other’s legitimate positions.
Having said that, if my neighbours were inclined to accommodate cycling infrastructure, as I am, I would not be inviting them to scan this site. The reflexive “NIMBY” epithet applied to dismiss protection of any settled private interest would not give them any confidence in reciprocal empathy. The fact that advantageous non-private interest (and even disruptive private interest) are on the other hand routinely esteemed would, I think, strike them as inconsistent and selective.
If I were ever in some version of the “Westheights” position, I would first size up whether playing softball was naïve. When everyone else is likely to bring their hardball glove, maybe one should just get ready to play that game.
In the Planning and Works agenda, it looks like Westmount/Glasgow is reccomended to be reverted to have no dedicated left-turn bays, so that there can once again be two southbound though lanes.
The report talks about how the existing configuration, (where one of the southbound lanes becomes a left turn bay, leaving only one through lane) was implemented in 2001, in response to a spate of left turn collisions. Planners had wanted to widen to allow for 2 through lanes and a left turn bay, but neighbourhood opposition forced the compromise of repurposing the existing 4-lane width.
They mention that if left-turn collisions return, it will effectively be up to council to decide whether to widen the road to allow for left turn bays, or to disallow left turns on to Glasgow at all.
(09-13-2015, 03:45 PM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]They mention that if left-turn collisions return, it will effectively be up to council to decide whether to widen the road to allow for left turn bays, or to disallow left turns on to Glasgow at all.
Forbid left turns 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM, and it'll eliminate most of the problem.
So long as people have an alternate route.
(09-13-2015, 03:45 PM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]Planners had wanted to widen to allow for 2 through lanes and a left turn bay, but neighbourhood opposition forced the compromise of repurposing the existing 4-lane width.
Careful what you wish for. I'm pretty sure the neighbours discovered to their chagrin that their "preferred" alternative was worse. That is the block long queue of cars in front of them for most of the day. City council and planners should be ready to listen, but they should also be ready to hold fast and explain to irate neighbours why the proposed solution was chosen. A no left turn lane might lead to people turning right and then doubling back on Glasgow.
(09-14-2015, 06:10 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Roundabout!
Don't give them any ideas. And by the way, now that roundabout fever is starting to die down with the end of the summer, data is starting to pop up pointing out that large roundabouts are not a good idea. For what is worth this matches my experience, having lived for many years in a country where roundabouts are rather common.
Roundabouts are particularly not a good idea anywhere where people should be able to get around on foot. They need not be terribly unfriendly for walkers, but the ones that are better are the exception. Generally, they're very bad for walkability.
A roundabout capable of handling 2+2 through lanes likely wouldn't fit there in any case.
I don't think there's any chance of accommodating one there physically or politically; I suspect Canard was joking.
Not being familiar with the intersection, I was serious, expecting to read answers why it was a bad idea.
That stretch of Westmount (Glasgow - John) is quite narrow and is barely wide enough to fit the current 4 lane configuration as is.
(09-14-2015, 12:09 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Not being familiar with the intersection, I was serious, expecting to read answers why it was a bad idea.
Oh- sorry. I read the excaliamation point incorrectly. There likely isn't the room for it here is the short answer. And, even if there were, the residents likely wouldn't prefer it.
I don't think they should even be entertained anywhere within built-up areas of any density. They are quite simply terrible for people trying to tackle them on foot. I understand that they have some merits in reducing severity of collisions of vehicles and so on, but they make for terrible walking.
(09-14-2015, 09:59 AM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]A roundabout capable of handling 2+2 through lanes likely wouldn't fit there in any case.
European-style mini-roundabouts (without a huge centre island) certainly would fit. Whether it would be a good idea or not is another thing.
(09-14-2015, 09:13 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]Roundabouts are particularly not a good idea anywhere where people should be able to get around on foot. They need not be terribly unfriendly for walkers, but the ones that are better are the exception. Generally, they're very bad for walkability.
Roundabouts are everywhere in the UK, even in highly walkable areas. And I think they don't impact walkability much.
What's bad for walkability is a high-speed roundabout. But that's no different than other high-speed traffic arrangements, it's not inherent to its roundaboutedness.
