Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: General Road and Highway Discussion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
"Automobile operating speed (85th percentile) has also dropped, from over 70 km/h in 2005, to between 62 to 66 km/h in 2015. Average speeds have dropped as well, and are now closer to the posted 50 km/h speed limit."

I think the complete street has improved the excessive speeding along that stretch, but until safer links are made to the rest of the city the active transportation users of Davenport will remain a small minority.
Thank you for the data, Pheidippides. Usually information about these things is out there. With respect, BuildingScout, I don't think it's too helpful to provide a perspective from behind the windshield, especially when we're dealing with a stretch of road that most people cover in their car in about a minute.

Good point that, while nearby streets remain hostile to people on foot and bicycle, roads like Davenport won't get use, either. But I bet the folks whose backyards back onto this street are happy that the average speed is, erm, at least "closer" to the speed limit. As do, I bet, the parents whose kids cross Davenport on the walkways that meet it.
All viewpoints should be welcome in a forum - wether it be from behind the windscreen of a car, through the window of a bus, behind handlebars, or above shoes. Understanding each other's perspectives and concerns is what makes a forum flourish.
I don’t see how it adds a lot of value to say things like “I never see any cyclists on this road [while I’m spending a minute driving 65 km/h down it].” Pheidippides provided some real data: that’s useful. The information is out there. We have traffic counts for many streets, and case studies on many actual changes that have been made.

It’s not always possible, but when it is, we should talk about real facts. I’m happy to be proven wrong if I had an assumption about a certain change being good, and data show the change didn’t make much difference. But when we say that something is a waste of money because it means we had to drive a bit slower, and we don’t see anyone biking down it anyway, I’m not sure what that’s adding.
Just recently I saw one very prominent and vocal member of a cycling advocacy group stating that trucks "always park on cycle lanes" and it goes completely unquestioned. No data to back it up, just his personal observations. Total double standard. Just trying to keep the playing field level.
(06-25-2016, 04:33 PM)IEFBR14 Wrote: [ -> ]Now the is how it should be done.

https://www.facebook.com/africacablenetw...052835627/

Very impressive.

I've always wondered why there wasn't more emphasis on getting things done faster.  Like if it takes 1000 man hours to get a project done, why not get more people on site to get it done sooner?
Because 9 women can't have a baby in a month. Big Grin

I hate when management is always just like "throw more people at it! It'll get done faster." Well no, because now you have to involve and manage that many more people and it just often becomes a mess.
(06-28-2016, 10:32 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Because 9 women can't have a baby in a month. Big Grin

I hate when management is always just like "throw more people at it! It'll get done faster." Well no, because now you have to involve and manage that many more people and it just often becomes a mess.

But in some cases throwing more people at it will get it done faster.  I understand that some things take time, but some things don't have to work at a snail's pace.
(06-28-2016, 10:17 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Just recently I saw one very prominent and vocal member of a cycling advocacy group stating that trucks "always park on cycle lanes" and it goes completely unquestioned. No data to back it up, just his personal observations. Total double standard. Just trying to keep the playing field level.

I think it would be pretty difficult to argue that the playing field is tilted towards cycling advocates over motorists. But, you know, nobody said “always park on cycle lanes” here. Obviously trucks do not “always” park on cycle lanes. It happens, but who could know for sure how often (if someone knows of some data, I would be interested!).
(06-28-2016, 08:56 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t see how it adds a lot of value to say things like “I never see any cyclists on this road [while I’m spending a minute driving 65 km/h down it].” Pheidippides provided some real data: that’s useful. The information is out there. We have traffic counts for many streets, and case studies on many actual changes that have been made.

It’s not always possible, but when it is, we should talk about real facts. I’m happy to be proven wrong if I had an assumption about a certain change being good, and data show the change didn’t make much difference. But when we say that something is a waste of money because it means we had to drive a bit slower, and we don’t see anyone biking down it anyway, I’m not sure what that’s adding.

I already argued that time spent taking the sample is not important if the event is relatively long lived. But this is clearly not about the facts. You disliked my opinion and nitpick to an extent you never do elsewhere to justify your preconceptions. All the while you yourself provide no data, which makes your complaints even more ironic.

"But when we say that something is a waste of money because it means we had to drive a bit slower, "

No one has said that, which further subtracts from your position.

And contrary to what you say, you aren't happy to be proven wrong. When provided the first inkling of evidence (in the form of anecdata) that you might be wrong you shut down with excuses instead of saying "gee, now that I think about it, I haven't seen that many cyclists on that road either" (if you had you would have undoubtedly mentioned them).

No one is claiming (except you) that an anecodote/anecdata is the ultimate word. They are data points that allow us to make hypothesis that we (or city hall) can follow further if there's action to be taken.

 This is how all anecdotes are treated here and in other forums. Did you go berzerk when Canard reported the posts on the Weber underpass were rusting? Did you claim that a scientific sample had to be taken for them to determine if they needed to be replaced? Of course not, that would be non-sense. Yet that is exactly what you are doing here.
Why don't we just dial it back, or move on, sound good?
Spokes Wrote:But in some cases throwing more people at it will get it done faster.  I understand that some things take time, but some things don't have to work at a snail's pace.

You don't want to optimize just for speed.  The number of people working on a project isn't a really flexible thing.  If one week you can use 10 people, the next week you can use 20, and the week after its back to 10 - its probably not realistic to ramp up your staffing for that one week.

Especially when you consider that people need to get up to speed on work, they need to be managed, have HR concerns looked after, etc. etc.
(06-28-2016, 11:57 AM)SammyOES Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-14-2015, 07:28 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: [ -> ]But in some cases throwing more people at it will get it done faster.  I understand that some things take time, but some things don't have to work at a snail's pace.

You don't want to optimize just for speed.  The number of people working on a project isn't a really flexible thing.  If one week you can use 10 people, the next week you can use 20, and the week after its back to 10 - its probably not realistic to ramp up your staffing for that one week.

Especially when you consider that people need to get up to speed on work, they need to be managed, have HR concerns looked after, etc. etc.

...how am I being quoted here? If you go back a page, I'm not any part of that thought  Huh Confused
(06-28-2016, 11:20 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: [ -> ] ...Did you go berzerk when Canard reported the posts on the Weber underpass were rusting?...

I don't think I "went berserk," but it sounds like something I said you took personally. I didn't mean it that way; I wasn't trying to pick on you, so if you thought I said something out of character with my other posts like in the Weber thread or wherever else, I'm sorry.

It didn’t strike me that you would be interested in hearing about how many cyclists I think I see on Davenport. I do see them, and I’ve cycled on it, too. I think I said that. I’ve no real idea how many cyclists use the street (though we heard from a few here), so that’s why I didn’t comment on it.
Heading to Herrle's on the weekend I noticed plenty of signs and whatnot for the Costco roundabouts, as well as the shell of a cavernous building that could very well be said Costco. Anyone got a link to a T&I thread on those roundabouts (I want to see if there are drawings showing whether they're planning to do anything interesting with the bike lanes) or is all the information in the Waterloo Costco thread?