Road design, safety and Vision Zero

[jwilliamson]

The far-smaller number that have functional buttons have no signage, I think. And maybe that should be added to make it clear that you do need to press the button.

The newer ones do have a sign. Actually, the newer ones are all the same except for the sign: either "audible signal only" with an icon, or the detailed instructions for the ones that must be pressed in order to get a signal.

Although I was displeased to see that the University Ave. crossing has a new style of button just for the bicycle path which does not have an indicator — you can’t tell if the button has been pressed unless you look at the pedestrian buttons. Plus the bicycle buttons should be well back, maybe 50m from the intersection and on the right side of the path.

Do you mean 5m from the intersection?

[ijmorlan]

The newer ones do have a sign. Actually, the newer ones are all the same except for the sign: either "audible signal only" with an icon, or the detailed instructions for the ones that must be pressed in order to get a signal.

Although I was displeased to see that the University Ave. crossing has a new style of button just for the bicycle path which does not have an indicator — you can’t tell if the button has been pressed unless you look at the pedestrian buttons. Plus the bicycle buttons should be well back, maybe 50m from the intersection and on the right side of the path.

Do you mean 5m from the intersection?

No, 50m, although I didn’t actually calculate the number. The idea is that I can press the button and at about the time I reach the road I will get a green. So it needs to be whatever distance back gives time for the lights to cycle. Of course there also needs to be a button right at the road for pedestrians and people arriving from a different direction.

[jwilliamson]

Do you mean 5m from the intersection?

No, 50m, although I didn’t actually calculate the number. The idea is that I can press the button and at about the time I reach the road I will get a green. So it needs to be whatever distance back gives time for the lights to cycle. Of course there also needs to be a button right at the road for pedestrians and people arriving from a different direction.

There's enough pedestrian and bicycle traffic here that they could eliminate the buttons entirely and just cycle the lights on a fixed schedule, but we all know how our traffic engineers would feel about that.

[Bytor]

No, 50m, although I didn’t actually calculate the number. The idea is that I can press the button and at about the time I reach the road I will get a green. So it needs to be whatever distance back gives time for the lights to cycle. Of course there also needs to be a button right at the road for pedestrians and people arriving from a different direction.

There's enough pedestrian and bicycle traffic here that they could eliminate the buttons entirely and just cycle the lights on a fixed schedule, but we all know how our traffic engineers would feel about that.

Or, you know, using intelligent sensors like the Dutch and change as needed whenever.

[Acitta]

'Let's be more proactive': Safety concerns over Weber St. crossing in Waterloo

This is the third or fourth time the sign has been knocked down at this crossing. I cross here every week on my bike. It is not a safe crossing.

[SF22]

Kitchener has been doing such a good job at retrofitting trail crossings to be safer, but the Region just hasn't. And of course all of the regional roads are the busiest ones. The Dom Cardillo Trail has at least 3 crossings across 4 lanes of traffic with absolutely zero pedestrian infrastructure (two on River, one on Fairway, ranging from 80m-440m away from the nearest protected intersection). There's this presumed push to make sure everyone has good access to greenspace near their homes, but those sorts of crossings are like a chasm you have to navigate, and a lot of people won't, especially if they have mobility issues or small kids.

[danbrotherston]

Kitchener has been doing such a good job at retrofitting trail crossings to be safer, but the Region just hasn't. And of course all of the regional roads are the busiest ones. The Dom Cardillo Trail has at least 3 crossings across 4 lanes of traffic with absolutely zero pedestrian infrastructure (two on River, one on Fairway, ranging from 80m-440m away from the nearest protected intersection). There's this presumed push to make sure everyone has good access to greenspace near their homes, but those sorts of crossings are like a chasm you have to navigate, and a lot of people won't, especially if they have mobility issues or small kids.

This is exactly on point. My parents always ask why we moved away when we had a kid, they'd have been less upset if we didn't have a kid...well...it's the reverse, I moved away BECAUSE we had a kid....because I'm willing to be an asshole and risk my life to fight to make the city better...but I'm unwilling to sacrifice my child or their freedom to that same goal, I moved because the city ran out of time to make itself a place I wanted to raise a child.

As for the crossing...yeah, the Weber crossing is probably the single event that cause me to lose any belief in the competence of our regional engineers. Like, before, I thought they didn't want to build non-car infra, that they were tasked with prioritizing cars. It was only after they built the Weber crossing, that I realized they were incapable of building good infrastructure. After I saw that I knew that it wasn't just a matter of changing a few minds...you needed new people. And frankly, I think that also explains a little bit why there is such a resistance...these engineers see their own skills becoming obsolete, they don't even have to be car brained, it's basic self preservation. No different than oil workers being terrified at the prospect of having their entire industry relegated to the scrapheap of history.

[bravado]

Guys guys, you just don’t understand

If you’re not driving a car then surely your trip isn’t important

[cherrypark]

...I'm unwilling to sacrifice my child or their freedom to that same goal, I moved because the city ran out of time to make itself a place I wanted to raise a child.

On a related note: it is pathetic the degree to which you can visibly see driver reactions/behaviour different when they think I have our toddler in the cargo bike vs. riding alone or with an obviously open bin. Especially when its a close call and they realize the consequence of their inattention.

[dtkvictim]

2) I'm pretty sure the Gaukel crossing over Charles St has been replaced with a beg button, and gives an otherwise permanent green to traffic on Charles St. I just watched it for 2.5 minutes and the light never cycled, while about 20 people (none of whom pressed the button) decided to wait for a few seconds each and then just cross since there was no traffic. Maybe someone who lives in Charlie West or uses this crossing often can confirm.

Do people really not understand that they won’t get a green if they don’t press the button? I regularly observe this on King at the Waterloo Spur. Now, to be clear, I don’t object to people crossing against a red hand when there is no conflicting traffic and I sometimes do it myself, but I don’t understand how people don’t understand that the button is required in order to get a walking person.

Of course, regular readers here will know that I think many of these should be reversed to be permanently green for pedestrians, until vehicle traffic activates the light using sensors in the road.

Another observation on this crossing: I noticed the button for the crossing closest to the ION stop is 1) set decently far back, and 2) hidden behind the pole if you are approaching from the ION stop. Actually I think the crossing button for the opposite direction (crossing Gaukel, which I'm not sure why that even needs to be a crosswalk anymore) still has the old "Audible Signal Only" label. I just watched about 20 people get off the ION and wait to cross without pressing the button, so I pressed it for them

I also saw a cyclist almost get hit crossing over Charles St. Presumably because from his perspective there is no indication he's approaching a controlled intersection (no red light, no stop sign, pretty far offset pedestrian signals) and barely had time to stop.

While I'm whining about this intersection, I wish the bollards on the north section of Gaukel St included the crosswalk (which again, shouldn't need to exist anymore) since it's apparently an irresistible place for delivery drivers to stop.

Honestly I think the changes the signal engineers made here were worse than doing nothing (unless making sure vehicle traffic has green lights by default counts). Meanwhile a block away at Ontario St, southbound bicycles still have no signals... Over a year after opening. They hung the lights a few months after my last email, maybe they'll take the bags off and turn them on a few months after my next one.

[danbrotherston]

Do people really not understand that they won’t get a green if they don’t press the button? I regularly observe this on King at the Waterloo Spur. Now, to be clear, I don’t object to people crossing against a red hand when there is no conflicting traffic and I sometimes do it myself, but I don’t understand how people don’t understand that the button is required in order to get a walking person.

Of course, regular readers here will know that I think many of these should be reversed to be permanently green for pedestrians, until vehicle traffic activates the light using sensors in the road.

Another observation on this crossing: I noticed the button for the crossing closest to the ION stop is 1) set decently far back, and 2) hidden behind the pole if you are approaching from the ION stop. Actually I think the crossing button for the opposite direction (crossing Gaukel, which I'm not sure why that even needs to be a crosswalk anymore) still has the old "Audible Signal Only" label. I just watched about 20 people get off the ION and wait to cross without pressing the button, so I pressed it for them

I also saw a cyclist almost get hit crossing over Charles St. Presumably because from his perspective there is no indication he's approaching a controlled intersection (no red light, no stop sign, pretty far offset pedestrian signals) and barely had time to stop.

While I'm whining about this intersection, I wish the bollards on the north section of Gaukel St included the crosswalk (which again, shouldn't need to exist anymore) since it's apparently an irresistible place for delivery drivers to stop.

Honestly I think the changes the signal engineers made here were worse than doing nothing (unless making sure vehicle traffic has green lights by default counts). Meanwhile a block away at Ontario St, southbound bicycles still have no signals... Over a year after opening. They hung the lights a few months after my last email, maybe they'll take the bags off and turn them on a few months after my next one.

Wait, there is no red light along Gaukel now? what about a stop sign? But bicycles are allowed? The engineer who did that is going to get sued for sure for sure. There is no traffic control device for the cyclist at all--they are not supposed to follow the pedestrian signals--they have the right of way and so do drivers, it is the same liability if an engineer programmed the lights to be green in both directions at the same time.

I feel like I must be understanding the situation wrongly, but as I've said before, I'm no longer surprised by our engineers incompetence...I already know they lack the skills and training to build good infrastructure that isn't for cars.

[dtkvictim]

Wait, there is no red light along Gaukel now? what about a stop sign? But bicycles are allowed? The engineer who did that is going to get sued for sure for sure. There is no traffic control device for the cyclist at all--they are not supposed to follow the pedestrian signals--they have the right of way and so do drivers, it is the same liability if an engineer programmed the lights to be green in both directions at the same time.

I feel like I must be understanding the situation wrongly, but as I've said before, I'm no longer surprised by our engineers incompetence...I already know they lack the skills and training to build good infrastructure that isn't for cars.

I mean crossing from the southern Gaukel pedestrian street, to the northern "pedestrian" thing/modal filter, if that's what you interpreted. Google Streetview is showing me Oct 2023 coverage which seems to be up to date with everything I described. I suspect the legal answer is that Gaukel street is poorly defined, and cycling on it is a grey area? Despite being clearly encouraged.

No lights, facing north (bonus, the no stopping sign pointing left is probably encouraging people to stop to the right... on the crosswalk): https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4500708,...?entry=ttu

No lights, facing south: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4500708,...?entry=ttu

The pedestrian button setup I describe that seems to confuse everyone I see: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4500708,...?entry=ttu

[danbrotherston]

Wait, there is no red light along Gaukel now? what about a stop sign? But bicycles are allowed? The engineer who did that is going to get sued for sure for sure. There is no traffic control device for the cyclist at all--they are not supposed to follow the pedestrian signals--they have the right of way and so do drivers, it is the same liability if an engineer programmed the lights to be green in both directions at the same time.

I feel like I must be understanding the situation wrongly, but as I've said before, I'm no longer surprised by our engineers incompetence...I already know they lack the skills and training to build good infrastructure that isn't for cars.

I mean crossing from the southern Gaukel pedestrian street, to the northern "pedestrian" thing/modal filter, if that's what you interpreted. Google Streetview is showing me Oct 2023 coverage which seems to be up to date with everything I described. I suspect the legal answer is that Gaukel street is poorly defined, and cycling on it is a grey area? Despite being clearly encouraged.

No lights, facing north (bonus, the no stopping sign pointing left is probably encouraging people to stop to the right... on the crosswalk): https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4500708,...?entry=ttu

No lights, facing south: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4500708,...?entry=ttu

The pedestrian button setup I describe that seems to confuse everyone I see: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4500708,...?entry=ttu

That's pretty much exactly what I was envisioning. The original street hardscape, with temporary materials "transforming" it, but with the sidewalks and roadway intact.

I imagine if this did go to court, engineers lawyers would argue that the no entry sign means cycling is entirely prohibited, so any cyclist is automatically at fault for anything that happens while breaking the law.

Of course, that's probably not what's intended, but I don't harbour any illusions that the regional engineers who worked on the signals have so much as given a single thought about cyclists....I've met the dude, he's so full of shit, he tows the party line like a fucking robot...(to clarify the implication, the party line is shit).

Still, as usual this will work because unlike the engineers, most people aren't robots and know how to do something other than follow a rulebook. But of course, it will lead to hate and anger at cyclists for "breaking the rules".

[KevinL]

So cyclists are officially forbidden across Charles at this point, as far as signals on the ground go; yet I will bet this is still considered a suitable corridor in the cycling network...

[danbrotherston]

This is so fucking weak.

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/kitchener-c...-1.6684473

“Oh I had a constituent who sped past a school and somehow I sympathize with him”.

Just fucking pathetic.

In the Netherlands school zones are 15km/h because there we care more about children than shitty entitled ass drivers. Fuck I’m glad we moved.