Walking in Waterloo Region

[jamincan]

I'm a little confused about this consultation, because it is my understanding that they have already marked trees for removal along Longfellow for sidewalks.

As for the sidewalks, I personally don't think they are necessary on every street and I'm not really sure that Longfellow is one of the ones that would really need them.

   

[danbrotherston]

I'm a little confused about this consultation, because it is my understanding that they have already marked trees for removal along Longfellow for sidewalks.

As for the sidewalks, I personally don't think they are necessary on every street and I'm not really sure that Longfellow is one of the ones that would really need them.

I am unsure about the markings.

As for sidewalks, out of curiosity, what streets do you feel do not need sidewalks? Longfellow is not meaningfully different to my eye than the thousands of other residential streets that do have sidewalks.

As a pedestrian, I have walked along many unsidewalked residential streets--including this one and I really do not feel safe doing so...you can blame dangerous drivers for that all you want, but until we are willing to do something about dangerous drivers, we're going to need sidewalks.

[timc]

I do appreciate the trees in the area. So I think it is a good conclusion that if we want to keep them, we should narrow the road to make room for pedestrians.

[ijmorlan]

I am unsure about the markings.

Part of the planning process? I think I see the same colours on the actual trees as on the plans.

As for sidewalks, out of curiosity, what streets do you feel do not need sidewalks? Longfellow is not meaningfully different to my eye than the thousands of other residential streets that do have sidewalks.

As a pedestrian, I have walked along many unsidewalked residential streets--including this one and I really do not feel safe doing so...you can blame dangerous drivers for that all you want, but until we are willing to do something about dangerous drivers, we're going to need sidewalks.

Woonerfs are the new hotness, but they need to be built as such — very hostile to fast motor vehicle traffic. Right now we have a de facto woonerf on Longfollow, which I don’t see as appropriate, for exactly the reasons you give. Looking at the map, Longfellow is not a deadend and is part of the pedestrian route for many destinations. I think it should have sidewalks for sure on the south side and preferably on both sides.

My question would be why they’re only considering 7m and 8m width. According to the MTO:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/trucks/...-3-7.shtml

… transport trucks are limited to a width of 2.6m. So a 6m right of way would allow two trucks to pass each other and would of course further encourage appropriate speeds.

Additionally, whether parking is allowed should be part of the design. If it is, as is currently the case, then intersections should be narrowed compared to the rest of the street, because parking is not allowed at intersections so the space for parking does not need to be available. Actually the provision of parking suggests that the 7m width might actually be appropriate — but still not at intersections.

What about corner radius? The plans show 6m radius, which isn’t huge like at the intersection of two major streets, but for a residential street with low speeds even that might be more than is needed.

[danbrotherston]

I am unsure about the markings.

Part of the planning process? I think I see the same colours on the actual trees as on the plans.

As for sidewalks, out of curiosity, what streets do you feel do not need sidewalks? Longfellow is not meaningfully different to my eye than the thousands of other residential streets that do have sidewalks.

As a pedestrian, I have walked along many unsidewalked residential streets--including this one and I really do not feel safe doing so...you can blame dangerous drivers for that all you want, but until we are willing to do something about dangerous drivers, we're going to need sidewalks.

Woonerfs are the new hotness, but they need to be built as such — very hostile to fast motor vehicle traffic. Right now we have a de facto woonerf on Longfollow, which I don’t see as appropriate, for exactly the reasons you give. Looking at the map, Longfellow is not a deadend and is part of the pedestrian route for many destinations. I think it should have sidewalks for sure on the south side and preferably on both sides.

My question would be why they’re only considering 7m and 8m width. According to the MTO:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/trucks/...-3-7.shtml

… transport trucks are limited to a width of 2.6m. So a 6m right of way would allow two trucks to pass each other and would of course further encourage appropriate speeds.

Additionally, whether parking is allowed should be part of the design. If it is, as is currently the case, then intersections should be narrowed compared to the rest of the street, because parking is not allowed at intersections so the space for parking does not need to be available. Actually the provision of parking suggests that the 7m width might actually be appropriate — but still not at intersections.

What about corner radius? The plans show 6m radius, which isn’t huge like at the intersection of two major streets, but for a residential street with low speeds even that might be more than is needed.

Agree in theory with Woonerfs, but you're right, none of our designs (except maybe Larch) are actually woonerfs by design.

For parking, you could probably even allow parking on a street with a 6 meter cross-section, if traffic and parking were both infrequent.

For corner radii, you're right, the Kitchener Complete Streets Guide would recommend a 3 meter turn radii at most of these intersections.

[tomh009]

I'm a little confused about this consultation, because it is my understanding that they have already marked trees for removal along Longfellow for sidewalks.

As for the sidewalks, I personally don't think they are necessary on every street and I'm not really sure that Longfellow is one of the ones that would really need them.

The engagewr FAQ says the city has not marked any trees, those were marked by someone else. Possibly a resident trying to sow how terrible it will be?

The options look very, very reasonable to me. For example, option 3 (sidewalk on one side, street width reduced to 7m) only requires the removal of two trees, and possible construction impact to some others. Retaining walls need to be added only in front of two properties.

The narrower street should reduce speeds, and removing parking on one side should enhance the "bucolic nature" of the street.

On top of that, a safe sidewalk for pedestrians. I don't see why Longfellow should get a special exemption from what is standard practice for street construction.

[ijmorlan]

On top of that, a safe sidewalk for pedestrians. I don't see why Longfellow should get a special exemption from what is standard practice for street construction.

Definitely agreed. In that area, I’d be OK with Shakespeare Pl. (not Dr.), Browning Pl., Tennyson Pl., and the tail end bits of Algonquin Dr. and Iroquois Pl. remaining permanently without sidewalks, as they are deadends which don’t go anywhere, either for motor traffic or pedestrians. Longfellow Dr., Shakespeare Dr., and the portions of Iroquois Pl., Algonquin Dr., and Apache Dr. which lead to the pedestrian connection to Shakespeare Dr, all definitely should have sidewalks; in some areas just one side might be OK. I could go either way on Mohawk Ave., but probably it should have at least one sidewalk just on principle; although maybe if that one were made into a true woonerf that would also be OK.

It’s past time that we correct the mistakes of the past, in urban design on both the local and larger scale, just as in other areas of political debate.

[danbrotherston]

I'm a little confused about this consultation, because it is my understanding that they have already marked trees for removal along Longfellow for sidewalks.

As for the sidewalks, I personally don't think they are necessary on every street and I'm not really sure that Longfellow is one of the ones that would really need them.

The engagewr FAQ says the city has not marked any trees, those were marked by someone else. Possibly a resident trying to sow how terrible it will be?

The options look very, very reasonable to me. For example, option 3 (sidewalk on one side, street width reduced to 7m) only requires the removal of two trees, and possible construction impact to some others. Retaining walls need to be added only in front of two properties.

The narrower street should reduce speeds, and removing parking on one side should enhance the "bucolic nature" of the street.

On top of that, a safe sidewalk for pedestrians. I don't see why Longfellow should get a special exemption from what is standard practice for street construction.

I could be being overly cynical, but it seems like getting an exception to building a sidewalk *IS* the standard practice for street construction.

[ijmorlan]

OK, I take it back re: Apache Pl. It’s in effect just a shared driveway between two houses; I think making it a woonerf would be fine. However, I’m thinking that paving a trail all the way in one style, and then widening it a bit using a different colour or style of pavement where needed for the driveways, would be a more appropriate approach than paving it like an actual road.

[ijmorlan]

On top of that, a safe sidewalk for pedestrians. I don't see why Longfellow should get a special exemption from what is standard practice for street construction.

I could be being overly cynical, but it seems like getting an exception to building a sidewalk *IS* the standard practice for street construction.

Maybe for re-construction, but what is the situation for newer developments? I just realized I don’t have a good sense of what the policy is for new streets, although I regularly hear about these controversies regarding existing roads. Even Westmount Rd. had people whining about the completion of the west-side sidewalk not very long ago.

[danbrotherston]

I could be being overly cynical, but it seems like getting an exception to building a sidewalk *IS* the standard practice for street construction.

Maybe for re-construction, but what is the situation for newer developments? I just realized I don’t have a good sense of what the policy is for new streets, although I regularly hear about these controversies regarding existing roads. Even Westmount Rd. had people whining about the completion of the west-side sidewalk not very long ago.

Yes, sorry, only for re-construction, new construction seems to usually include sidewalks, I'm sure it's in some standards doc...although only for urban context roads, which is why shit like Highland Rd. and Victoria St. existed for so long.

And yeah, Westmount was an embarrassment. It was more than just whining, the man detailed his decades long campaign against sidewalks....because he feels entitled to park his transport truck (no exaggeration, he parks a transport truck tractor) in his driveway.

[ijmorlan]

And yeah, Westmount was an embarrassment. It was more than just whining, the man detailed his decades long campaign against sidewalks....because he feels entitled to park his transport truck (no exaggeration, he parks a transport truck tractor) in his driveway.

The City should have sent him a bill for parking on City land

[tomh009]

Maybe for re-construction, but what is the situation for newer developments? I just realized I don’t have a good sense of what the policy is for new streets, although I regularly hear about these controversies regarding existing roads. Even Westmount Rd. had people whining about the completion of the west-side sidewalk not very long ago.

Yes, sorry, only for re-construction, new construction seems to usually include sidewalks, I'm sure it's in some standards doc...although only for urban context roads, which is why shit like Highland Rd. and Victoria St. existed for so long.

Highland and Victoria were much older construction, though; I expect sidewalks were not required at the time.

[danbrotherston]

Yes, sorry, only for re-construction, new construction seems to usually include sidewalks, I'm sure it's in some standards doc...although only for urban context roads, which is why shit like Highland Rd. and Victoria St. existed for so long.

Highland and Victoria were much older construction, though; I expect sidewalks were not required at the time.

AFAIK Highland was constructed in it's previous configuration in the 90s.

Yeah, I guess that's getting on 30 years ago, but it doesn't feel that old to me.

I am not certain of the exact details, but I'm fairly sure that the region, up until recently (for some definition of recently but clearly more recently than the formation of the region, possibly as recently as 10 years ago) had a policy where cities had to pay to construct sidewalks on regional roads. This kind of turf fighting led to stuff like Victoria and Highland. Of course, that was less recently than for the same policy for signage for MUTs, which was only fixed in the last 1-2 years, because apparently we have to learn everything the hard way.

[tomh009]

Highland and Victoria were much older construction, though; I expect sidewalks were not required at the time.

AFAIK Highland was constructed in it's previous configuration in the 90s.

Yeah, I guess that's getting on 30 years ago, but it doesn't feel that old to me.

I am not certain of the exact details, but I'm fairly sure that the region, up until recently (for some definition of recently but clearly more recently than the formation of the region, possibly as recently as 10 years ago) had a policy where cities had to pay to construct sidewalks on regional roads. This kind of turf fighting led to stuff like Victoria and Highland. Of course, that was less recently than for the same policy for signage for MUTs, which was only fixed in the last 1-2 years, because apparently we have to learn everything the hard way.

Which part of Highland was it?