Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[Uptown] Erb/Bridgeport/Caroline/Albert Reconstruction
#76
Excellent submission. Here is what I sent this morning:

Subject: Bridgeport Road, Caroline Street, Erb Street,
and Albert Street Improvements

I hope it's not too late to add my comments.

Overall I think the proposed changes are a big improvement. I just have
concerns about a few mismatches in capacity between different parts of the
project and some other relatively minor points.

First, you have Bridgeport Rd. Westbound at two through lanes, and Erb St.
Eastbound at three through lanes. This makes no sense; Erb St. and Bridgeport
Rd. together form a single arterial running through town. How many two-way
roads in town have a different number of lanes in the two directions? I would
suggest making both streets have two through lanes. This frees up lots of
space on Erb St. for bicycle lanes and better sidewalks or multi-use trails,
and matches the capacity of the two roads together to Erb St. West of
Caroline.

On a similar note, you still have the right turn from Bridgeport onto Erb at
one lane. This again makes no sense. The turn lane is part of the Westbound
flow along Bridgeport and Erb all the way across the city, which as noted
above form a single arterial. How many other four-lane roads in the Region
have a single intersection at which one of the directions is constricted to a
single lane? Note: please don't respond that the intersection itself is the
responsibility of the LRT project. It's the responsibility of every project
to work together with related projects.

Albert St. should have contra-flow bicycle lanes. With eliminating the
redundant vehicle lanes as you are already planning, there should be space for
this.

There should be a pedestrian crossing of Erb St. at Albert, and Caroline at
Dupont. The justification for not doing so (low pedestrian counts) is utterly
bogus on major wide streets such as these (it's fine for narrower streets
where people will cross in the absence of a signal). If the same
decision-making was used for bridges, none would ever get built because how
many people swim across, using a winch to pull their cars behind them, before
the bridge is built? No, what must be done is an evaluation of how many
people *would* use a crossing if it were built. These signals could be
synchronized with the other signals in the area in such a way that they impose
essentially no additional burden on through traffic.

Finishing on a positive note, I'm very happy to see a substantial pedestrian
island at Bridgeport and Erb. If the right-turn lane could move further from
the intersection, making the island bigger, that would be even better. The
multi-use trail on Bridgeport is another big positive. I'm looking forward to
seeing construction of an improved version of this plan.
Reply


#77
I just got a response from the Project Manager saying they would be recommending the plan presented in January to Council on May 24th.

http://joelwilliamson.ca/waterloo/Erb_Ca...Letter.pdf
Reply
#78
(05-12-2016, 10:33 PM)jwilliamson Wrote: I just got a response from the Project Manager saying they would be recommending the plan presented in January to Council on May 24th.

http://joelwilliamson.ca/waterloo/Erb_Ca...Letter.pdf

The most significant change from the proposal in January seems to be this:
Quote:Construction of a southbound raised cycling lane on the west side of Albert Street from Erb Street to Bridgeport Road/Caroline Street;

Which is pretty great! It makes it legal to bike south on Albert.
Reply
#79
What do they mean "raised"? Like its elevated above road level like a sidewalk, with a curb for cars?
Reply
#80
(05-13-2016, 06:12 AM)Canard Wrote: What do they mean "raised"? Like its elevated above road level like a sidewalk, with a curb for cars?
Yes, that is exactly what they mean, from my understanding - so it is clearly separated from the northbound traffic.
Reply
#81
Hopefully Markster will be willing to stitch together the PDF maps again for us so we can better see the proposed changes!
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
#82
There are no images supplied with the update, just text descriptions
Reply


#83
It said in the letter that final proposal will be posted to the region's website next Friday; I'm just assuming their will be fresh maps.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
#84
The new report is out:
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...df#page=79

Including new maps and typical cross sections:
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
#85
I like the looks of some of the bike infrastructure but kinda disappointed to see 3.25m lanes on these roads, the speed limit is only 50km/h here so 3m lanes might be a better choice. I also think making Erb and Bridgeport 2 way in the long term is a way better plan for the city. I think those parking spots in front of the church are going to be an accident hot-spot for a while, I think the church could make a mint if they build a few storeys of parking garage during the week they could rent spots cheap and have plenty of room on Sundays for their people.
Reply
#86
(05-21-2016, 04:42 PM)clasher Wrote: I also think making Erb and Bridgeport 2 way in the long term is a way better plan for the city.

I agree with your other points, too, particularly lane width. But this is really important. Converting Erb and Bridgeport should be the plan.
Reply
#87
(05-22-2016, 06:58 AM)MidTowner Wrote:
(05-21-2016, 04:42 PM)clasher Wrote: I also think making Erb and Bridgeport 2 way in the long term is a way better plan for the city.

I agree with your other points, too, particularly lane width. But this is really important. Converting Erb and Bridgeport should be the plan.

Right now we have the lights synchronized in both streets, making them efficient ways in and out of town. Your suggestion is to replace them with two way streets substantially slowing this means of ingress/egress. This is desirable how?
Reply
#88
Ingress/egress is surely optimized by one-way streets, yes.

Opponents of one-way streets feel that two-way streets are safer and more livable than one-way ones, and will result in the local businesses prospering as well.
Reply


#89
(05-23-2016, 01:13 PM)omh009 Wrote: Ingress/egress is surely optimized by one-way streets, yes.

Opponents of one-way streets feel that two-way streets are safer and more livable than one-way ones, and will result in the local businesses prospering as well.

Using this "logic" we'll put planters in between lanes on the highways because they look nicer, are safer and more livable.

I even question the premise. Two way Erb St. W. is neither safer, nor more livable than Erb St. E. Both are ugly main throughways not ideal for urban habitation.

You guys remind me of local city planners who seem to have reached the conclusion that since roundabouts are generally good, roundabouts everywhere are bestest. No case by case analysis or anything, just follow the trend whether it makes sense or not.
Reply
#90
(05-22-2016, 09:44 AM)BuildingScout Wrote:
(05-22-2016, 06:58 AM)MidTowner Wrote: I agree with your other points, too, particularly lane width. But this is really important. Converting Erb and Bridgeport should be the plan.

Right now we have the lights synchronized in both streets, making them efficient ways in and out of town. Your suggestion is to replace them with two way streets substantially slowing this means of ingress/egress. This is desirable how?

Exactly what precludes two-way streets from being synchronized? Weber and Fischer-Hallman have synchronized lights and work well. Plus, most people don't even realize about the synchronization to begin with and race ahead at 70-80kph and then end up waiting at the next light instead of keeping a steady pace; a behaviour that contributes to the unsafe nature of both streets.

Two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) roads have as much capacity as a multi-lane road and since Erb and Bridgeport are not nearing capacity, along the majority of their stretches, it would make sense to make them more liveable, safer, and connected while not reducing the capacity. The two directional travel also adds to the connectivity (more ways to get to the same place) of the street network and so if there is a crash or construction there are alternatives to take to reach the same destination.

While out of the "scope" of this particular EA, it is one of those network level issues that should be decided first, and not after lots of other smaller decisions make it an impossible option through lack of foresight.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links