Waterloo Region Connected
Cycling in Waterloo Region - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Cycling in Waterloo Region (/showthread.php?tid=186)



RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 08-18-2020

Here is another viewpoint on the COVID lanes on Erb St. from a resident:

https://www.therecord.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editors/2020/08/18/bike-lanes-have-lowered-the-high-speed-of-traffic.html


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - cherrypark - 08-18-2020

It probably breaks a traffic code, but while passing by the Victoria IHT crossing, I was wondering why - potentially with a bit of re-alignment of the trail crossing - that it couldn't be signalized in conjunction with the Strange/West green light. Have the cars on Victoria stop clear of the IHT crossing path and operate a signal that runs in conjunction with the main intersection ped signals.

For the number of cars turning left and right onto westbound Victoria, it seems it wouldn't be often that the stretch from the crossing to the intersection would get filled with vehicles. Turning into that lane at low speed means it wouldn't be particularly disruptive to pause for the signal switch, which is pretty short at that intersection anyways.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - plam - 08-18-2020

(08-18-2020, 10:55 AM)jamincan Wrote: I definitely have a concern that ineffective spending on bike infrastructure could backfire. Until there is a feasible network, uptake will be limited, which could be seen as an indictment on cycling as transportation rather than a reflection of the inadequacy of the system.

I think that we're all alluding to the fact that there has to be a network, not just isolated infrastructure. CycleWR has said this as well.

So here's separated bike infrastructure in NZ which perhaps wasn't the best because it is not connected to anything. It's a long piece and the discussion of connectivity is at the end. (edit: spot the Rob Ford reference)

https://www.noted.co.nz/life/life-urbanism/on-yer-bike-how-the-island-bay-cycleway-split-a-community

I've walked along there twice during the lockdown but have never taken my bike there (it is relatively far from where I'm staying). Also, detailed design is important and yet somehow never put out for input. Always the same story.

Victoria-IHT is hard.

As for dtkmelissa's point about car sewers: Yeah, I wonder about nodes and corridors. I wouldn't actually want to live on Weber, Erb, or Bridgeport. Too many cars. Better to live a bit farther back from there.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - dtkvictim - 08-18-2020

The existing sidewalks have been removed around the Victoria crossing. Despite these big dirt pits on other side of the crossing, I didn't see a single person detour to the traffic lights. Pedestrians (even saw some with children) and cyclists trying to navigate this construction... quite a dangerous looking situation as they cross the dirt holes and stage their crossing while on the road.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 08-18-2020

(08-18-2020, 06:38 PM)cherrypark Wrote: It probably breaks a traffic code, but while passing by the Victoria IHT crossing, I was wondering why - potentially with a bit of re-alignment of the trail crossing - that it couldn't be signalized in conjunction with the Strange/West green light. Have the cars on Victoria stop clear of the IHT crossing path and operate a signal that runs in conjunction with the main intersection ped signals.

For the number of cars turning left and right onto westbound Victoria, it seems it wouldn't be often that the stretch from the crossing to the intersection would get filled with vehicles. Turning into that lane at low speed means it wouldn't be particularly disruptive to pause for the signal switch, which is pretty short at that intersection anyways.

It definitely doesn't violate the "traffic code"...it but doesn't strictly follow one of the exact designs specified in the Ontario road design guides...it would require our engineers to actually engineer something, as opposed to photocopy the exact designs present in design guides.

That's just not something the region does...


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 08-18-2020

(08-18-2020, 08:05 PM)plam Wrote:
(08-18-2020, 10:55 AM)jamincan Wrote: I definitely have a concern that ineffective spending on bike infrastructure could backfire. Until there is a feasible network, uptake will be limited, which could be seen as an indictment on cycling as transportation rather than a reflection of the inadequacy of the system.

I think that we're all alluding to the fact that there has to be a network, not just isolated infrastructure. CycleWR has said this as well.

So here's separated bike infrastructure in NZ which perhaps wasn't the best because it is not connected to anything. It's a long piece and the discussion of connectivity is at the end. (edit: spot the Rob Ford reference)

https://www.noted.co.nz/life/life-urbanism/on-yer-bike-how-the-island-bay-cycleway-split-a-community

I've walked along there twice during the lockdown but have never taken my bike there (it is relatively far from where I'm staying). Also, detailed design is important and yet somehow never put out for input. Always the same story.

Victoria-IHT is hard.

As for dtkmelissa's point about car sewers: Yeah, I wonder about nodes and corridors. I wouldn't actually want to live on Weber, Erb, or Bridgeport. Too many cars. Better to live a bit farther back from there.

To be fair, I don't think--in theory at least--detailed designs should be put out to public input...I mean, the point of having engineers is to understand how to build detailed designs that work well...the public (and our representatives) should only be setting the general direction.  The problem in our region is that quite frankly, most of our engineers are incompetent when it comes to designing cycling infra--or at least, I believe that is the reason why we are pushing to see detailed designs.  I would much prefer to live in a city where I could assume the engineers would do it right, the last time I did that, we got the garbage Weber crossing.


Yeah, the equity story here is so noticeable...just walk up Margaret and turn on Victoria...the property value drops by...I bet, two thirds in 10 feet...that's probably the most extreme example...but partly that is for equity reasons also, Victoria is probably the most fetid of the car sewers.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 08-18-2020

(08-18-2020, 08:49 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: The existing sidewalks have been removed around the Victoria crossing. Despite these big dirt pits on other side of the crossing, I didn't see a single person detour to the traffic lights. Pedestrians (even saw some with children) and cyclists trying to navigate this construction... quite a dangerous looking situation as they cross the dirt holes and stage their crossing while on the road.

It should come as no surprise that after decades of having a sign that lied to us by telling us to cross at the intersection, the same signage with no meaningful wayfinding or marking (or protection) is being ignored now.

That being said, I'm going to have to walk over and take a look, frankly, construction detours is yet another thing we usually fail at (albeit with some high profile successes).


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 08-19-2020

(08-18-2020, 10:31 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: To be fair, I don't think--in theory at least--detailed designs should be put out to public input...I mean, the point of having engineers is to understand how to build detailed designs that work well...the public (and our representatives) should only be setting the general direction. 

I think the detailed designs should be put out for comment. It should be a limited sort where they announce where they are in the project and put everything on the Web; no drop-in sessions (even in normal times). There are enough sufficiently knowledgeable or just curious people that it’s reasonable to do this, and given the designs need to be created and shared between project members, they can just be shared on a public site.

The real need is for designers to take seriously the public input and not pretend that they are all-knowing.

I’m sure they don’t consciously consider themselves all-knowing, but I am quite confident they feel comfortable dismissing most public input as being based on a lack of knowledge. By contrast, in my work I frequently get suggestions that are problematic from a technical perspective, but I think about them from the perspective of the person asking for it, and frequently am able to come up with a way of incorporating their needs into the overall design. The final form isn’t usually exactly what the person asked for (“please add a button right here to do this”) but still makes them as happy as, or even happier than they would have been.

In traffic engineering it’s a bit different, where so much of the professional knowledge is wrong. Not the knowledge about how big a bridge girder has to be to support a particular road, but the so-called knowledge about how wide lanes need to be, what turn radii need to be, and what is acceptable protection for non-motor-vehicle users of the infrastructure.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 08-19-2020

(08-19-2020, 08:39 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-18-2020, 10:31 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: To be fair, I don't think--in theory at least--detailed designs should be put out to public input...I mean, the point of having engineers is to understand how to build detailed designs that work well...the public (and our representatives) should only be setting the general direction. 

I think the detailed designs should be put out for comment. It should be a limited sort where they announce where they are in the project and put everything on the Web; no drop-in sessions (even in normal times). There are enough sufficiently knowledgeable or just curious people that it’s reasonable to do this, and given the designs need to be created and shared between project members, they can just be shared on a public site.

The real need is for designers to take seriously the public input and not pretend that they are all-knowing.

I’m sure they don’t consciously consider themselves all-knowing, but I am quite confident they feel comfortable dismissing most public input as being based on a lack of knowledge. By contrast, in my work I frequently get suggestions that are problematic from a technical perspective, but I think about them from the perspective of the person asking for it, and frequently am able to come up with a way of incorporating their needs into the overall design. The final form isn’t usually exactly what the person asked for (“please add a button right here to do this”) but still makes them as happy as, or even happier than they would have been.

In traffic engineering it’s a bit different, where so much of the professional knowledge is wrong. Not the knowledge about how big a bridge girder has to be to support a particular road, but the so-called knowledge about how wide lanes need to be, what turn radii need to be, and what is acceptable protection for non-motor-vehicle users of the infrastructure.

I'm not against the data being public (and indeed, it is, when the tender is issued), but I really don't believe there should be any public comment. The fact is, for every 100 people who have the knowledge and understanding to comment thoughtfully, 99.9 of them will not be interested and have better things to do, and then there are 1,000,000 cranks who don't understand the thing one bit, but have more than enough to say. All it really would be is a make work project for the city to listen to people who don't know anything but are convinced they are experts.

We aren't talking about public input on things the public wants--where should a bike lane be, do we need a crossing here--what you describe as user needs/user stories --"I need to cross the road here, make it safe". The engineers--YOU are the one to say "here's how we do that"--in your case, you design a button here, using a callback and whatever calls are required to implement that button. That's detailed design, so it's more like "what granularity of fill do we need here", "how should this curb be profiled", and "what dimensions and specifications should this island be"...Yes, I happen have an opinion on the second two, but I have no idea about the first, and the only reason I have an opinion on the second two is because the regional engineers (and city engineers) get it wrong 9 times out of 10.

Basically, nobody in this city EXCEPT engineers should have any input on what granularity of fill is needed under roads, but the only reason I feel that is the case is because AFAIK our engineers generally get that right. I would like the same to be true for curb profiles and ped islands too--sadly that isn't the case right now, but that doesn't change my opinion about what the situation SHOULD be.

This is why we pay engineers, and few people with the actual expertise are going to be giving comments for free unless they the engineers in the city are regularly doing something wrong...


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 08-19-2020

While I'm glad the crossing is being improved, even if I may not be satisfied with how much, the construction as usual continue to treat peds and cyclists with zero consideration.



What a joke "use other sidewalk" both sidewalks are gone, they just don't care...

And it wouldn't even be hard to do a detour well (even if I think a 500 meter detour is too much for pedestrians walking, it should still be done, and the detour for the trail would be very easy, but it MUST be signed, nobody outside of the neighbourhood would know to turn down a dead end street to access the unmarked unsigned trail).



They didn't even bother to use any useful sign on the trail.

   


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 08-19-2020

(08-19-2020, 09:46 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: What a joke "use other sidewalk" both sidewalks are gone, they just don't care...

It is of course absolutely inconceivable that they would close the road to one direction of motor vehicle traffic. That would provide tons of space to maintain pedestrian/bicycle access along Victoria.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 08-19-2020

(08-19-2020, 09:05 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'm not against the data being public (and indeed, it is, when the tender is issued), but I really don't believe there should be any public comment. The fact is, for every 100 people who have the knowledge and understanding to comment thoughtfully, 99.9 of them will not be interested and have better things to do, and then there are 1,000,000 cranks who don't understand the thing one bit, but have more than enough to say. All it really would be is a make work project for the city to listen to people who don't know anything but are convinced they are experts.

Lots of good points, I think I see better what you’re saying. You are definitely correct that detailed design goes way beyond stuff most people care about, and indeed includes all sorts of completely invisible things. In my mind I was thinking of stuff like “just where exactly will this curb go?” which I think could use some extra eyes but I agree that the aggregate size or wire conduit routing does not need public comment.

I’m also thinking of things like the platform access at Northfield station, where members of the public most likely would have complained if they had been made aware of the plans before construction. Even with better engineers, there would still be occasional layout issues that might be missed.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 08-19-2020

(08-19-2020, 01:54 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-19-2020, 09:05 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'm not against the data being public (and indeed, it is, when the tender is issued), but I really don't believe there should be any public comment. The fact is, for every 100 people who have the knowledge and understanding to comment thoughtfully, 99.9 of them will not be interested and have better things to do, and then there are 1,000,000 cranks who don't understand the thing one bit, but have more than enough to say. All it really would be is a make work project for the city to listen to people who don't know anything but are convinced they are experts.

Lots of good points, I think I see better what you’re saying. You are definitely correct that detailed design goes way beyond stuff most people care about, and indeed includes all sorts of completely invisible things. In my mind I was thinking of stuff like “just where exactly will this curb go?” which I think could use some extra eyes but I agree that the aggregate size or wire conduit routing does not need public comment.

I’m also thinking of things like the platform access at Northfield station, where members of the public most likely would have complained if they had been made aware of the plans before construction. Even with better engineers, there would still be occasional layout issues that might be missed.

Yes, I completely agree, and that kind of stuff should and usually does come to a PIC (at least when it's not for cars).

The LRT was a special case of incompetence because it was done through a DBFOM or whatever, basically the contractor was making it up as they go along---and honestly, that can bring efficiency, the full public process is long anc convoluted...and if you have competent engineers, it should be largely fine with only small mistakes....sadly, we did not have that.

That being said, for things that are brand new like the LRT, there is a very specific type of thinking and process that helps someone develop a good user experience, and most people don't really do that, they know what they do, and if you disrupt that, you'll hear about it (like that could have caught the Traynor issue), but for something novel, it's not natural to just think of how you would use something based on it's engineering plans. It would in fact be the combination of effective competent engineers working with the public to guide them through the experience that would reveal small usability issues before construction.  We do this in my work all the time.

Of course, northfield is not a small usability issue, any competent engineer should have seen a problem with Northfield, it was a conscious choice not to care or prioritize...

But yeah, in general, broad usability and user experience issues should involve the public. Certainly there is lots of grey area.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 08-19-2020

(08-19-2020, 01:46 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-19-2020, 09:46 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: What a joke "use other sidewalk" both sidewalks are gone, they just don't care...

It is of course absolutely inconceivable that they would close the road to one direction of motor vehicle traffic. That would provide tons of space to maintain pedestrian/bicycle access along Victoria.

However, there are reverse cases, too (such as Weber St E right now), where motor vehicle traffic is completely closed and pedestrian/bicyclist access is maintained.


RE: Cycling in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 08-19-2020

(08-19-2020, 02:29 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(08-19-2020, 01:46 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: It is of course absolutely inconceivable that they would close the road to one direction of motor vehicle traffic. That would provide tons of space to maintain pedestrian/bicycle access along Victoria.

However, there are reverse cases, too (such as Weber St E right now), where motor vehicle traffic is completely closed and pedestrian/bicyclist access is maintained.

That is true, there are other examples, like the Fountain St. bridge, where significant effort was used to maintain ped connections, in the case of the Fountain St. bridge this was because the official vehicle detour was up the 401, which obviously prohibits peds and cyclists...

I think the key is that when the agency doing the work makes it a priority, it happens, when it doesn't, it doesn't. It needs to be codified into the rules that it must always be considered and accomodated, it would be nice too if the priority was say...higher than maintaining vehicle traffic...then the city/region needs to enforce these rules.