Posts: 2,402
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
48
I think it’s hard to fathom that the Region thinks a one-way pair is necessary leading from the expressway towards Uptown Waterloo. Bridgeport Road East near Weber carries 16,500 cars a day according to the Region’s traffic counts. Erb Street just west of Weber carries just shy of 17,000; just east of Weber, less than 11,000.
These are absurdly low volumes to afford three lanes one-way. One lane each way with a centre turning lane would accommodate these volumes with free-flowing traffic nearly all of the time.
Posts: 1,227
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
31
(05-30-2016, 08:13 AM)MidTowner Wrote: I think it’s hard to fathom that the Region thinks a one-way pair is necessary leading from the expressway towards Uptown Waterloo. Bridgeport Road East near Weber carries 16,500 cars a day according to the Region’s traffic counts. Erb Street just west of Weber carries just shy of 17,000; just east of Weber, less than 11,000.
These are absurdly low volumes to afford three lanes one-way. One lane each way with a centre turning lane would accommodate these volumes with free-flowing traffic nearly all of the time.
The main arguments for two way streets is that they bring (1) slow traffic which leads to (2) more patrons for local merchants and (3) friendlier to pedestrians. This makes streets such as St. Paul in St. Catherines an ideal candidate for conversion.
None of those arguments apply to erb or bridgeport as shown by the fact that two way erb st. w. is no better than one way erb st. e. which is why I insist on not applying blindly the "two way street is better than one way".
Using the low volume argument we could have shot down the expressway back when it was constructed.
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
48
(05-30-2016, 08:54 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: Using the low volume argument we could have shot down the expressway back when it was constructed.
What do you mean? Arguing that there is no volume on a piece of infrastructure that doesn’t exist is not at all the same as saying a street is overbuilt for the volume it has been carrying.
Bridgeport and Erb have traffic volumes that justify streets of very different configurations than are in place now. If we don’t base the configuration of a street on the traffic it actually carries, what should drive it?
Slower traffic is good for myriad reasons, not just improved patronage for businesses. Giving Erb and Bridgeport a road diet and building them to suit the traffic they actually carry would slow traffic, making them safer for all road users and residents. It would also increase liveability on the streets, and property values.
Posts: 1,227
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
31
(05-30-2016, 09:08 AM)MidTowner Wrote: (05-30-2016, 08:54 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: Using the low volume argument we could have shot down the expressway back when it was constructed.
What do you mean? Arguing that there is no volume on a piece of infrastructure that doesn’t exist is not at all the same as saying a street is overbuilt for the volume it has been carrying.
The expressway didn't see substantial amounts of traffic until quite a while after it was built.
The rest of your "arguments" in favour of the road diet apply equally to the expressway, and again, Erb St W proves that they are not universal.
What you fail to see is that we have streets and we have arterial roads. You are trying to apply street logic to an arterial road. Here's your argument in a nut shell:
"Hey, this artery isn't clogged, let's make it two way so that it becomes so."
Posts: 2,163
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
76
(05-21-2016, 04:08 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: The new report is out:
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...df#page=79
Including new maps and typical cross sections:
No one has actually posted any pictures from this yet, so how about I do that.
The most significant change from the plan in the OP is the southbound cycling lane on Albert St. But, they forgot to include that page of the diagram 
The closest we get to see it is on these slides, showing Caroline and Erb Sts.
Posts: 1,191
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
34
I really like some of the improvements that are being made. These streets, especially Erb Street, are so unfriendly right now. Actually being able to cross Albert Street on foot without taking my life in my own hands will definitely be appreciated. I don't much like MUTs, but I'll take it.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
05-30-2016, 10:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2016, 10:57 AM by Canard.)
Why don't you like MUT's? The Spur Line and Iron Horse trails are MUT's, right? To me that's like "best case", is it not?
Posts: 1,972
Threads: 18
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
37
(05-30-2016, 10:33 AM)Canard Wrote: Why don't you like MUT's? The Spur Line and Iron Horse trails are MUT's, right? To me that's like "best case", is it not?
In Montreal, for instance, the Lachine Canal path has separate walking and cycling facilities, which is better than an MUT as volumes increase. MUT is way better than riding in traffic but it's not the best thing possible.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Oh yes, separate bicycle and pedestrian paths would be a dream.
I was with a group of friends in Toronto this weekend, and saw this setup. Two of my friends were pushing strollers and said "we're going to go on this path!" (the cycle path) and I tried to tell them they should come over to the pedestrian path... But they wanted to do their own thing, and then got blasted repeatedly by every cyclist going by...
Posts: 10,283
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
296
Separate trails would be lovely -- but getting actual multi-use trails built is far better in my opinion than just having a dream of separate trails.
I love the sci-fi hyperloop concept, but in the meantime I'd be very happy just to get all-day GO service for Kitchener. Reality isn't always compatible with dreams.
Posts: 430
Threads: 2
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation:
50
(05-30-2016, 05:39 AM)jamincan Wrote: Duke/Charles is an interesting example, actually. Charles is easily able to handle the existing traffic, what was the traffic situation like prior to it switching to two-way? It's hard to fathom that they thought one-way streets were ever necessary in DT Kitchener.
They were supposed to take traffic off King St to make it pedestrian-friendly.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
I still think the LRT should have gone down King St. through downtown Kitchener, and have it turned into a transit/bike/pedestrian mall.
Posts: 10,283
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
296
(05-30-2016, 12:26 PM)Canard Wrote: I still think the LRT should have gone down King St. through downtown Kitchener, and have it turned into a transit/bike/pedestrian mall.
... with giant fences, like in Waterloo Park? 
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
No, no fences. At low speeds through urban areas without freight trains sharing the line, it can operate unprotected.
This is how Calgary's downtown is set up and it's lovely.
Posts: 1,227
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
31
(05-30-2016, 12:26 PM)Canard Wrote: I still think the LRT should have gone down King St. through downtown Kitchener, and have it turned into a transit/bike/pedestrian mall.
I agree.
|
