(08-16-2021, 10:58 AM)ac3r Wrote: But it's a bit of a challenge. Victoria South is not as bad because it has a lot of single family homes facing it. It feels alright to walk down, if not a bit noisy in parts. South then turns into a 2 lane road at around Victoria/Walnut. But North is an arterial road connecting Highway 7 and it sees a lot of traffic from people going to and from Guelph. Weber and Lancaster also intersect with it, so essentially it's 3 heavily used arterial roads in one area with a lot of traffic converging. It would be nice if it could be reduced to two lanes with bike infrastructure and wider sidewalks for pedestrians, but with that amount of traffic, I'm not sure how much they could change without a long term attempt to reduce car dependency or appropriating some of the property on the businesses that face the road in order to add in bike lanes and wider sidewalks.

(08-16-2021, 12:43 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(08-16-2021, 10:58 AM)ac3r Wrote: But it's a bit of a challenge. Victoria South is not as bad because it has a lot of single family homes facing it. It feels alright to walk down, if not a bit noisy in parts. South then turns into a 2 lane road at around Victoria/Walnut. But North is an arterial road connecting Highway 7 and it sees a lot of traffic from people going to and from Guelph. Weber and Lancaster also intersect with it, so essentially it's 3 heavily used arterial roads in one area with a lot of traffic converging. It would be nice if it could be reduced to two lanes with bike infrastructure and wider sidewalks for pedestrians, but with that amount of traffic, I'm not sure how much they could change without a long term attempt to reduce car dependency or appropriating some of the property on the businesses that face the road in order to add in bike lanes and wider sidewalks.

It’s not that hard to get a significant volume of traffic off Victoria: Re-arrange the intersection with Shirley Drive to make the superior straight-through route be Shirley Drive — bridge over Grand River with the leg of Victoria coming under the railway bridge be the inferior route that ends at the superior route. Similarly re-arrange the intersection of Shirley Drive with Bingeman’s Centre Drive. That gives traffic from out of town a direct route to the expressway on a purpose-built high capacity road (not street). Let Victoria St. be an actual street in the urban planning sense.

Build the access road under the tracks connecting Wellington with Edna south of Victoria, and close the Lancaster St. crossing, at least to motor vehicle traffic (should be OK to keep a multi-use trail crossing). Vehicles can cross the tracks at Margaret or at the new underpass instead of at Lancaster. This probably also fixes traffic on Lancaster south/east of Victoria and at the intersection with Krug.

This is all at least worth studying closely. Actually I’ll go further and suggest it’s definitely worth trying. I don’t trust our engineers to study it properly. There is enough evidence of excessive deference to motor vehicles in their approach that my deference to professional judgement is overridden.

(08-15-2021, 11:12 PM)cherrypark Wrote:

(08-15-2021, 03:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: *Rolls eyes* don't try to tell me with a straight face that walking the curbfaced sidewalk next to five lanes of high speed traffic is pleasant. 

And frankly the implicit whining about headphone distracted peds can fuck right off. 

Lemme be blunt here, I should be able to listen to music and walk in our downtown safely. And I should damn well be able to have tranquil places to walk closer than the Bruce Peninsula--and we absolutely do, you just need to walk to the wealthy neighbourhoods.

This you?

(07-03-2021, 02:18 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: You continue to disparage my home. What I am telling you is that I do not feel most of the condos in our city are "ugly" and that is a matter of opinion. You are welcome to believe that some buildings are ugly. But I am also allowed not to agree. And ultimately looks are a subjective matter.

The condo buildings we are discussing are not plain or austere developments, they nor do they look like the student housing development you highlighted. (Nor for that matter do most of the student developments look like that). They are simply modern buildings. You might not like the look of them, but I don't find them particularly problematic.

As for "if a building looks bad should it get approved"...WHO should decide if a building looks bad? Why do YOU get to make that decision and I don't? Why should ANYONE get to make that decision other than the person building it.

Make up your mind. Either you are open to differing opinions on what is acceptable in an urban environment and where people want a home in it or not.

I walk down Victoria St. every day. It's not as pleasant as it should be, and I absolutely think it could be improved in several ways, but why dismiss anyone who buys a home there to be near downtown, the park, and in a new development that - surprise! - might actually give the city a reason to start prioritizing your least favourite 'traffic sewer' differently?

If you put half the energy you do into arguing with everyone on the internet (and presumably real life) into constructive discussion, you might actually get somewhere with your advocacy, Dan.

(08-15-2021, 07:29 PM)jamincan Wrote:

(08-15-2021, 07:13 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: You wouldn't even be able to hear me if I said it while on Victoria St.

But you're welcome to apologize for suggesting that listening to headphones means you aren't paying attention to your surroundings.

You're putting words in his mouth.

You do have a tendency to dismiss other people's experiences when they don't align with your own. It's not compelling rhetoric and it's not conducive to discourse or debate.

(08-16-2021, 10:58 AM)ac3r Wrote:

(08-15-2021, 03:12 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: While that could happen, I don't think it's a given. Increased density along Victoria could just as easily make it more unpleasant (at least, as we're discussing here, subjectively). North American cities are full wide, high speed roads with narrow sidewalks, blocked in by towers, and personally I despise that environment.

I could see it happening. The city/region knows Victoria is an ugly, old road. At the very least, the thing is in serious need of repaving. I think if more development gets approved along here, they'll eventually redesign the road, likely with some better bike infrastructure and improved streetscapes for pedestrians.

But it's a bit of a challenge. Victoria South is not as bad because it has a lot of single family homes facing it. It feels alright to walk down, if not a bit noisy in parts. South then turns into a 2 lane road at around Victoria/Walnut. But North is an arterial road connecting Highway 7 and it sees a lot of traffic from people going to and from Guelph. Weber and Lancaster also intersect with it, so essentially it's 3 heavily used arterial roads in one area with a lot of traffic converging. It would be nice if it could be reduced to two lanes with bike infrastructure and wider sidewalks for pedestrians, but with that amount of traffic, I'm not sure how much they could change without a long term attempt to reduce car dependency or appropriating some of the property on the businesses that face the road in order to add in bike lanes and wider sidewalks.

At the very least, reducing speed, repaving it and putting in new sidewalks, curbs, trees and plants could at least make it feel better (and with a bit of time, maybe some of the stripmalls and parking lots can get redeveloped). You could even install some nice metal guardrails to divide the sidewalk and road, something like the bottom right one with planters on it seen below. It may not actually provide a lot of safety, but it can at least help beautify what is otherwise an ugly, wide road:

(08-16-2021, 08:35 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: These are everywhere in Tokyo, and very often accompanied by trees and plants growing on them. It makes such a big difference on large, busy roads, and I'd love to have them here. I get there is an argument that it blocks pedestrians from freely crossing the street outside of designated intersections, but I think it can improve the streetscape enough that it's worth it.

Mind you, as long as we don't create something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2953841,-81.0355925,3a,83y,5.66h,86.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgtQVPP3IrgYzyrDBzFrnfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

(08-16-2021, 08:35 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: Mind you, as long as we don't create something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2953841,-81.0355925,3a,83y,5.66h,86.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgtQVPP3IrgYzyrDBzFrnfQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

(08-16-2021, 12:08 PM)Acitta Wrote: We are not going to get there quickly, but at least we are making progress, especially in Waterloo Region. It requires a massive cultural shift, which can't happen overnight. The Netherlands became the cycling paradise that it is because of widespread cultural support. Even car drivers there also cycle and their families cycle to school or to the shops. Here, too many car drivers can't understand why anyone would want to cycle or walk anywhere, and get annoyed at the very existence of cyclists and pedestrians.

(08-16-2021, 10:13 PM)jeffster Wrote:

(08-16-2021, 12:08 PM)Acitta Wrote: We are not going to get there quickly, but at least we are making progress, especially in Waterloo Region. It requires a massive cultural shift, which can't happen overnight. The Netherlands became the cycling paradise that it is because of widespread cultural support. Even car drivers there also cycle and their families cycle to school or to the shops. Here, too many car drivers can't understand why anyone would want to cycle or walk anywhere, and get annoyed at the very existence of cyclists and pedestrians.

Not sure it's just a cultural shift that's needed: we need a climate shift (our winters are brutally cold) and a topography shift as it is brutal as well. Compared to The Netherlands - mostly flat and temperate year round.

Should be noted too that car ownership in the Netherlands has increased: in 1992 42% were car free, now it's 25% car free. KM driven per year in the Netherlands is 13,000 vs 15,000 in Canada. That's remarkable considering how vast Canada is vs The Netherlands (the geography is insanely different).

I also don't believe that many car drivers are annoyed at cyclists or pedestrians. Perhaps it seems that way at times when people jay-walk/ignore lights and cyclists ignore road rules (just like car drivers do). Personally, when I am driving or walking anywhere, I noticed just about everyone (is 90% too high? Nah, it's 90%) on the road (or sidewalk) has zero respect for road (and pedestrian) rules and personal safety. That means everyone. Very few are professional "walkers/runners", "bikers", or "drivers".

What is needed is respect for each other, not matter the choice of travel. Each has its place. I dislike the hate every has for each other, and it makes zero sense.

(08-16-2021, 10:39 PM)Acitta Wrote: Well, lots of people cycle year round in Finland, which gets a lot of snow, so I don't accept the argument that winter is a barrier to cycling. I cycle year round and most of the time it is not that cold. There is no bad weather, only a poor choice of clothing (something that seems common among car drivers I have observed).

(08-16-2021, 10:23 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Here in Ottawa, I'm chuckling at the idea that Kitchener winters are "brutally cold" ...

(08-17-2021, 07:31 AM)clasher Wrote: It's not the cold that makes winter riding miserable, it's the mild winters with lots of melting snow that makes icy roads/paths overnight, and freezing rain that makes it miserable. Minneapolis is another cold(er?) city that has a great winter cycling scene and some good infrastructure to support it.