Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: Trails
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(09-06-2018, 09:57 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-06-2018, 09:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I could say more but I'll leave it at this: I've already made my feelings about the abilities of some of our engineers clear in this thread.

But can you clarify, do you believe that bicyclists do not need to slow down for road or rail crossings?

If there is no train, as indicated by the crossing protection, there is no need to slow down. Same with crossing a road at a traffic light on a green.

However, I think the point in this specific case is that the gates that appear to be shown on the plan are actually a huge pain to get through on a bike — it might even be necessary to get off and walk through the gates due to the steep turns required. This might depend on the exact positioning of the gates so it’s a bit hard to tell from the overall plan that was posted earlier in this thread. Based on other projects in the city that turned out significantly worse than expected due to small details like this, we are not confident the designers have made reasonable choices.

At least, that’s my take. I can’t speak for Dan.
(09-06-2018, 09:57 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-06-2018, 09:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I could say more but I'll leave it at this: I've already made my feelings about the abilities of some of our engineers clear in this thread.

But can you clarify, do you believe that bicyclists do not need to slow down for road or rail crossings?

This is a context dependent thing.  How is the crossing controlled.  Who has priority.  Both of which will be determined by how busy the road and trail are and the specific crossing circumstances. There is no one answer for this.

What I experienced in the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Quebec is extremely clear priority indications with intuitive markings. That depended on the specific context. Ontario has near pessimal policies here which are confusing for everyone.  Even though I don't think trails ever have priority, drivers often think they do. Which means everyone has to stop and wait.

In *this* instance specifically I wouldn't think trail users should slow down at all. The trail should have priority over the very low use bus only access road.  However if anyone is concerned about cyclists "speeding" through, that's an entirely unnecessary fear as the trail already has substantial speed calming in the form of vertical displacement (the curbs) and narrowing (the median projecting into the trail).  The new design would also have curbs and also a large chicain to calm speeds even before the gates.
Can someone just tweet the image and question to the region seeking clarification?

Perhaps it is just an oversight by the contractor or our misinterpretation of the CAD drawing that might be creating concern for no reason.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=5477]

Thanks.
(09-06-2018, 06:23 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-06-2018, 09:18 AM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]I think bollards prevent car traffic but not motorcycles, and they do not slow down bicycles. Or am I mistaken?

Motorcycles aren't a real problem on trails in the region. Also we shouldn't be slowing cyclists , either in that manner, to that degree, or at all in this context .

Agree. Saw one once. That's a pretty low number of occurrences.
The only motorcycles I've seen on trails were being ridden by bylaw enforcement officers. :-)
(09-07-2018, 02:33 PM)timc Wrote: [ -> ]The only motorcycles I've seen on trails were being ridden by bylaw enforcement officers. :-)

Indeed. I believe they are permitted but I don't really agree with it.  At least they ride zero electric motorbikes.

Out of 3 motorcycles I've seen on the trails in almost 8 years, 2 have been bylaw.
I did see a chopper taking a shortcut from Roger to Ferdinand once, but only once. It's been a while since I've seen scooters and/or ebikes using the trails at scarily fast speeds.
I found the original drawing of the Weber crossing (page 13,18,19 of the specifications/drawings document).

The island is 2m. The neighbouring lanes are 3.5m which below the regional standard of 3.65m, but well above the regional minimum of 3.25m for passing lanes, and regional minimum of 3.35 for curb lanes.
[attachment=5492]

As to not having room for a bigger island/refuge that is simply a matter of priorities. To give and idea of what could have fit in the right-of-way here is a sample plan. For reference, the right-of-way of Weber at Mackay is 27.5m.
[attachment=5496]
[attachment=5494]
[attachment=5493]

I realize that isn't possible on some streets, like Queen, but a larger island/refuge doesn't have to be the only answer to a safer crossing. Narrower lanes = shorter crossing distances, signalized crossing, level 2 crossing, etc.

Even at Queen though you could fit a larger island by simply bowing the lanes out and still fit it within the existing right-of-way:
[attachment=5497]
(09-07-2018, 09:23 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]I found the original drawing of the Weber crossing (page 13,18,19 of the specifications/drawings document).

The island is 2m. The neighbouring lanes are 3.5m which below the regional standard of 3.65m, but well above the regional minimum of 3.25m for passing lanes, and regional minimum of 3.35 for curb lanes.


As to not having room for a bigger island/refuge that is simply a matter of priorities. To give and idea of what could have fit in the right-of-way here is a sample plan. For reference, the right-of-way of Weber at Mackay is 27.5m.

Thanks for the detailed diagrams. I trust there will be no further suggestion that things are as they are because they had to be done that way or because something better would not have fit.
Doing the math on the widths on the proposal, it looks like the biggest gain was from taking away the 1m grass shoulder on each side. That freed up 2m of width, whereas narrowing the traffic lanes freed up only 0.8m. Is that correct?
That's great detail!

Out of curiosity, what tools did you use to build the diagrams?

Shame the missed opportunity there.

Of course I now want answers from the region on why they chose to build an in acceptably below minimum spec island while retaining boulevards. Frankly which ever engineer designed this clearly should know this is below minimum.
(09-07-2018, 10:49 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Out of curiosity, what tools did you use to build the diagrams?

The Weber diagram was done with QGIS, with the legend/profile done in MS Excel and the annotations in MS PowerPoint of all things.

The Queen diagram was done in MS PowerPoint.
[attachment=5502]

...30 seconds later, 2 cyclists whizzed past (on the walking side - we were walking).

Regarding the new signage, I really wish it was just arrows pointing down from the icons, not the verbiage "LEFT" and "RIGHT".  You'll get used to thinknig "Oh, cyclists are Left, cool - got it!" then when you make the return trip it changes.  If it was just arrows, no association is made.

...and if I'm being really picky, while I'm ecstatic they https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/1021487307663331333][/color]took my advice to put the tram pictograph on the sign... they didn't use the right one.

[attachment=5503]

Oh well, I guess things are hard.  I love it, otherwise.
(09-08-2018, 04:15 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]....
Regarding the new signage, I really wish it was just arrows pointing down from the icons, not the verbiage "LEFT" and "RIGHT".  You'll get used to thinknig "Oh, cyclists are Left, cool - got it!" then when you make the return trip it changes.  If it was just arrows, no association is made.
...

This is absolutely the case. Not only should it be arrows because it is clearer, it should be arrows because it is best practice for sign design. Writing "left" and "right" requires that the reader speak english. Which in a bilingual country (or any country for that matter) shouldn't be assumed. When there is a clear, well designed pictograph or icon which represents the concept clearly (or in this case *more* clearly) it should ALWAYS be preferred.

Moreover, design should naturally suggest function. They've come part way here with the line on the path, but they could have gone even further and paved the one trail in concrete to make it look like a sidewalk, this would have suggested that one is for walking without any signage required at all.

Quote:... I love it, otherwise.

Absolutely agreed, this is just nitpicking (although frankly something I wish some folks around here were more amenable too, understanding how one can do better is *always* important, no matter how well something works).
Long-awaited cycling link to go ahead this fall

"Designers went back to the drawing board, and came up with a compromise: the trail will be three metres wide for most of its length between Carwood Avenue near the Kaufman Family YMCA and Hayward Avenue. But beneath the highway underpass, the path will move further from the creek to avoid the need for the pricey retaining wall, and squeeze into the space between the streetside guard rails and the heavy concrete columns that support the highway. The compromise means that a stretch of the path will narrow to 1.7-1.9 metres, Parris told the city's cycling and trails advisory committee Tuesday."


Funny how there was no problem "squeezing" in 5 vehicular lanes when it was redone recently. Just like the Weber refuge this would appear to be against standard practice.


"If council awards the tender at its meeting later this month, the work could begin in October and wrap up six weeks later."

So best case scenario, early May?


"Another link in that stretch will link Courtland to the Iron Horse Trail, and is planned to go ahead next spring, but the design is contentious. Residents on Bedford Road and Sydney Street object to losing parking, or having Bedford become a one-way street, and even the cycling committee couldn't agree on a preferred design. The committee did approve a motion to move ahead with way-finding signs so that cyclists emerging from parkland trails know what streets they're on. Members called for the city to spend $50,000 now, rather than wait two more years until an update to the city's cycling master plan comes up with a standard design for cycling signs."


What on earth is on-street parking needed for on those streets? There is no nearby commercial interests. They are all single family homes, most of which can accommodate at least six cars. Why does Bedford have to become one-way? The current road is 8.7m wide and the right of way is 20m wide; plenty of room to fit 2 vehicle lanes and a MUT or 2 cycling lanes + 2 sidewalks.