Waterloo Region Connected

I will probably continue to go in a straight line completely bypassing where they expect people to go.

(06-09-2020, 10:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]while the road lane widths are maximized, over 4.2 meters.

But if they reduced the road lane width, vehicles might actually be forced to slow down while going by.

(06-09-2020, 10:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]The island is nearly completely flat, it might as well be paint, far worse than the one on union, the width is minimized only 2.4 meters, while the road lane widths are maximized, over 4.2 meters.

Disgusting. The road lanes should be about 10cm wider than the space required for a transport truck, and the island in the middle should be designed so that any vehicle hitting it is probably going to need body work.

I don't think West Ave. is a truck route, though there are hydro trucks that go down that stretch it still seems like another unnecessarily wide road. It would be a great place to set up photo-radar though.

(06-10-2020, 08:21 AM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think West Ave. is a truck route, though there are hydro trucks that go down that stretch it still seems like another unnecessarily wide road. It would be a great place to set up photo-radar though.

There is a hydro facility there, but hydro trucks aren't exactly large trucks, they should be able to manage anything someone can fit their F-650 truck through.

That being said, the hydro trucks should leave from the north end of the street, but the "hydro trucks" was also the justification given for the crossing to the south (at the trail to Sobeys/Food Basics) being level, instead of raised.

I went by today to get some more pictures, they have added bollards.

[attachment=7057]

You can see from this angle that the island is quite far out of the way of the desire line for the trail, I expect many people will not use it. It is a challenge because of the curve and the drive way, but this seems pretty far out of the way.

[attachment=7058]

You can see the bollards here, but you can also see it is almost completely flat and very narrow.

[attachment=7059]

They also reconstructed the roadway curbs so that was a substantial added cost, to further widen the road, and yet they did not widen it enough to build a proper sized island or to move the island to a better location.

[attachment=7060]

Another angle.

[attachment=7061]

The curbs....why why why can't they build flush curbs. They do in some places, but in most places they build this god forsaken 1 inch lip which pops tires and hurts my tushy, not to mention jostles my baby and flips my groceries. *sigh*...this isn't rocket science, how come we cannot get basic stuff right.

[attachment=7062]

And just the cherry on top, and I'm sure this is just an oversight, the "cross at signalized intersection" liability reducing sign remains.

I don't go through there that often, but just how busy is West St? I think a lot of level neighbourhood street crossings with major trails would be better served by narrowing the street to a single lane so that traffic has to take turns to cross.

(06-10-2020, 09:38 AM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]I don't go through there that often, but just how busy is West St? I think a lot of level neighbourhood street crossings with major trails would be better served by narrowing the street to a single lane so that traffic has to take turns to cross.

I fully agree in practice, but West is probably too busy for that, I think it would be categorized as a neighbourhood collector, but I haven't checked.  During morning rush, it carries a non-trivial amount of traffic.  In my opinion, volume wise, you probably could do what you suggest, but it's probably not the place to start.

Ironically, where I grew up there was a one lane bridge on a major road, that was considered a deficiency and tens of millions were spent to expand it.

Ya I don't think those big blue hydro trucks with the cherry pickers need the massive open road, the drivers are generally pretty good since they have to get into tight spaces to do their work sometimes... dunno why they would think that those trucks couldn't handle a speed hump... FFS they put a speed hump on Patricia, a street I've seen hydro trucks use. The speed hump on Patricia is jarring, moreso to trail users than any traffic on Patricia... if the purpose is to slow car traffic, why not just put two humps on either side of the trail? It seems like it is designed to make trail users uncomfortable.

The curb cut on the trail to/from Sobeys on the west side of West St. is the nicest, smoothest one I know of in Kitchener... it's like the only thing they got right. That should be a design standard IMO, to build anything else is just an F-U to cyclists, people pushing strollers, and especially anyone using a wheelchair or mobility scooter.

West gets a bit busy during rush-hour, at least pre-covid I think a fair amount of traffic came/went to the Sun-Life parking lot.

(06-10-2020, 08:21 AM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think West Ave. is a truck route, though there are hydro trucks that go down that stretch it still seems like another unnecessarily wide road. It would be a great place to set up photo-radar though.

When I say “space required”, I mean literally the smallest space which the truck can physically fit through. My suggested width is nowhere near enough for a truck route — full size trucks would have to line themselves up just right and squeeze through. To smaller vehicles, even cars, it would feel like a very narrow space, just not quite as extremely tight as for a large truck.

I don’t think the road can be made narrow enough that trucks literally don’t fit at all. Almost every location needs occasional visits from trucks for various deliveries.

I like the idea of having single-lane sections of some streets. I can’t speak to whether this is a good location for it, but there certainly are places in my neighbourhood where it would make a lot of sense to narrow a street to a single bidirectional lane for a path crossing.

(06-10-2020, 10:53 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-10-2020, 08:21 AM)clasher Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think West Ave. is a truck route, though there are hydro trucks that go down that stretch it still seems like another unnecessarily wide road. It would be a great place to set up photo-radar though.

When I say “space required”, I mean literally the smallest space which the truck can physically fit through. My suggested width is nowhere near enough for a truck route — full size trucks would have to line themselves up just right and squeeze through. To smaller vehicles, even cars, it would feel like a very narrow space, just not quite as extremely tight as for a large truck.

I don’t think the road can be made narrow enough that trucks literally don’t fit at all. Almost every location needs occasional visits from trucks for various deliveries.

I like the idea of having single-lane sections of some streets. I can’t speak to whether this is a good location for it, but there certainly are places in my neighbourhood where it would make a lot of sense to narrow a street to a single bidirectional lane for a path crossing.

FWIW, many two way roads in the Netherlands are only one lane wide (and I do mean like 3 meters total width). When there are oncoming vehicles, you must pull over into a siding in order to allow the other vehicle to proceed.  This is done in some residential areas, in rural areas, it saves tons of money on on roads because we don't need extra width, and leads to slower speeds and safer more friendly residential streets.  In addition, this was done in Waterloo park for the driveway for the tennis club.

Having a 1 lane choke point is much less aggressive, and is a totally reasonable traffic calming policy.

Stirling Ave. between King and Weber is a good width, imo, for residential streets. Wide enough that with parking on one side, vehicles can still get through, but it requires people to slow right down and take their time.

(06-10-2020, 11:06 AM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]Stirling Ave. between King and Weber is a good width, imo, for residential streets. Wide enough that with parking on one side, vehicles can still get through, but it requires people to slow right down and take their time.

That road is about 7 meters wide, which for our city, is a reasonable width with parking (and I think is the new complete streets guide for streets) considering there are residential streets in excess of 15 meters wide in the city.

I would still prefer narrower, 6 meters or 6.5 meters would be fine for two way traffic, if the road isn't going to be wide enough for two way traffic with parking, then it doesn't need to be any wider than it would already be for two way traffic.  But there are very few roads this narrow in the city, but there are a few in the area where I live, St. George (~6m), Hebbel Pl. (~4.5m), Whitney Pl. (~4m, some places as narrow as 3.5m).

I sure wish we could still build these streets today.

Oh, and a street which is wide for parking, which rarely has parking, even worse, in that case parking bays are needed with curbing to limit the effective road width.

(06-10-2020, 11:30 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Hebbel Pl. (~4.5m), Whitney Pl. (~4m, some places as narrow as 3.5m).

...

Oh, and a street which is wide for parking, which rarely has parking, even worse, in that case parking bays are needed with curbing to limit the effective road width.

These are two of my favourite streets in the area. Annoyingly, these streets have the opposite problem where they are not wide enough for street parking, but people still feel entitled to it. My last walk down Whitney, there were 3 cars parked on the sidewalk (and I don't mean sticking out from a driveway, I mean parked parallel to the road). At least on a street like this, you can safely walk on the road still.

Thanks for the extra IHT photos, I never expected that's what they were doing...

(06-10-2020, 11:01 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]FWIW, many two way roads in the Netherlands are only one lane wide (and I do mean like 3 meters total width). When there are oncoming vehicles, you must pull over into a siding in order to allow the other vehicle to proceed.  This is done in some residential areas, in rural areas, it saves tons of money on on roads because we don't need extra width, and leads to slower speeds and safer more friendly residential streets.

There's a fairly large number of rural bridges in NZ that are one-lane (especially on the South Island). They are posted so that one direction has priority and the other direction has to yield.

I was reading about some streets in Wellington which aren't wide enough to park on. But people still try to park and complain when they get tickets for parking on the sidewalk. They sometimes get tickets. Sometimes city parking says it's OK as long as there is 1m of available sidewalk.

https://twitter.com/wgtncc/status/108461...52?lang=en

https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/ne...ton-street

I mean, it seems to me like the answer is pretty simple. Don't park on that street.