Waterloo Region Connected
Trails - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Trails (/showthread.php?tid=378)



RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 06-13-2021

(06-13-2021, 03:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Crossrides are not permitted to be combined with PXOs under Ontario provincial legislation.

They are permitted when combined with full pedestrian signals as you find at Erb and Peppler.

OK, I just realized I was implicitly imagining a pedestrian signal, not a crosswalk (PXO in modern terminology, even though the concept is not new, no matter what staff say, it having been ubiquitous in Toronto in 1980). Thanks for clarifying.

Quote:Now, you might ask why they aren't using a full pedestrian signal, and there is a very good reason for that.

The region is in control of all traffic signals in the region, even those not on regional roads, and they refuse to place one at the trail. As a result the most the city engineers can do is place a PXO.

So it's mostly the fault of the region and province.

OK, so, seriously, why doesn’t the City reclassify parts of the trail as a street? I don’t really think they’re fighting passionately for the interests of the citizens of the city. Following the letter of the law is the spirit of the time, after all.

Even without resorting to legalistic trickery, why doesn’t City Council formally request of Regional Council to install a proper signal? Bypass the out-of-touch GM shareholders in the roads department entirely? Or has this already been tried?

The least they could do is put in a wide curb cut so it’s easy for bicycles to ride next to the crosswalk (even if, strictly, they’re not supposed to). I’m pretty sure nothing says you can’t have more roll curbs than needed. Actually I’m certain of it, given the kilometres of superfluous roll curbs that have been installed all over the Region.

Actually another question just occurred to me: does the City have the Region run its signals for convenience, or are they forbidden to run their own? If the former, then they should just go ahead and install some of their own. A pedestrian signal on a City road does not need to be synchronized with the rest of the network so there is no problem with being separate from the main traffic control system; it could just be an old-fashioned standalone signal. If the latter, how and when did that get decided and by whom?


RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 06-13-2021

(06-13-2021, 09:18 AM)bpoland Wrote: On that note, I really wish Waterloo had prioritized smooth crossings along the IHT on Caroline, particularly the small streets between Allen and William -- some of the curbs give you quite the jolt when biking.  Another one that stands out (literally) is the Spurline at Roger Street.

I just noticed a detail here: there are no small streets or crossings of any kind between Allen and William. Do you mean further down the trail? For example, John St. is an obvious location where the trail should be considered the superior route and traffic on John St. should yield entirely. My personal preference would be to install bollards to force all John St. traffic to travel through a single lane 3m wide at the trail, with traffic signals set to red for both directions which would clear to green for one direction at a time (and give the trail a red) when a sensor detected traffic.


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-13-2021

(06-13-2021, 03:58 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(06-13-2021, 09:18 AM)bpoland Wrote: On that note, I really wish Waterloo had prioritized smooth crossings along the IHT on Caroline, particularly the small streets between Allen and William -- some of the curbs give you quite the jolt when biking.  Another one that stands out (literally) is the Spurline at Roger Street.

I just noticed a detail here: there are no small streets or crossings of any kind between Allen and William. Do you mean further down the trail? For example, John St. is an obvious location where the trail should be considered the superior route and traffic on John St. should yield entirely. My personal preference would be to install bollards to force all John St. traffic to travel through a single lane 3m wide at the trail, with traffic signals set to red for both directions which would clear to green for one direction at a time (and give the trail a red) when a sensor detected traffic.

I believe they were referring to the trail along Caroline...which you might call part of the IHT, or the Laurel trail.

It was rebuilt by the REGION of Waterloo and it is truly terrible, in a short distance it has many large bumps and tight turns. Really awful. 

The spur line trail also has some bad intersections, I almost went off on the Rogers St. crossing (again, a Regional project).

Ultimately, its not something any government has prioritized, but they should. Kitchener is closest, and some crosswalks over minor streets MIGHT be built better in future. But frustratingly even brand new crossings are done poorly even by CoK right now.

I don't understand why engineers won't pay attention to these details, since it costs nothing, but ultimately, it's a less major issue than others.


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-13-2021

(06-13-2021, 03:53 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(06-13-2021, 03:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Crossrides are not permitted to be combined with PXOs under Ontario provincial legislation.

They are permitted when combined with full pedestrian signals as you find at Erb and Peppler.

OK, I just realized I was implicitly imagining a pedestrian signal, not a crosswalk (PXO in modern terminology, even though the concept is not new, no matter what staff say, it having been ubiquitous in Toronto in 1980). Thanks for clarifying.

PXOs have existed for a long time (and under Ontario law they are legally different from crosswalks), but Level 2 PXOs, which is what is proposed here, have different standards, and a far far lower cost.

(06-13-2021, 03:53 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
Quote:Now, you might ask why they aren't using a full pedestrian signal, and there is a very good reason for that.

The region is in control of all traffic signals in the region, even those not on regional roads, and they refuse to place one at the trail. As a result the most the city engineers can do is place a PXO.

So it's mostly the fault of the region and province.

OK, so, seriously, why doesn’t the City reclassify parts of the trail as a street? I don’t really think they’re fighting passionately for the interests of the citizens of the city. Following the letter of the law is the spirit of the time, after all.

Even without resorting to legalistic trickery, why doesn’t City Council formally request of Regional Council to install a proper signal? Bypass the out-of-touch GM shareholders in the roads department entirely? Or has this already been tried?

The least they could do is put in a wide curb cut so it’s easy for bicycles to ride next to the crosswalk (even if, strictly, they’re not supposed to). I’m pretty sure nothing says you can’t have more roll curbs than needed. Actually I’m certain of it, given the kilometres of superfluous roll curbs that have been installed all over the Region.

Actually another question just occurred to me: does the City have the Region run its signals for convenience, or are they forbidden to run their own? If the former, then they should just go ahead and install some of their own. A pedestrian signal on a City road does not need to be synchronized with the rest of the network so there is no problem with being separate from the main traffic control system; it could just be an old-fashioned standalone signal. If the latter, how and when did that get decided and by whom?

Even if the trail was a road, the region still would not install a traffic signal, it wasn't because it was a trail, it is because it is too close to the other intersection. The city did request, because city staff feel that it is warranted, but the regional engineers did not agree. It would take regional council to override them.

As for a wide boulevard, they are doing it on one side at Glasgow, but I don't think there's any actual value in this...ultimately, trail users will cross at the trail, regardless of legality, pretending otherwise is pointless, and I'm happy to see our engineers acknowledge this.

The signal system is an integrated system, the signals, in theory are all connected together and synchronized, to a central system. The region runs that system, therefore they run all the traffic signals in the region. It would be a very bad idea for the city to run a parallel system...if it is even legally possible given the region's mandate. A unified system makes sense to me, but what is surprising is that the regional engineering staff ALSO have complete control signals on city streets. Yes, there is some synchronization question, but it would be logical for city staff to have at least and equal seat at the table.


RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 06-13-2021

(06-13-2021, 05:21 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(06-13-2021, 03:58 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I just noticed a detail here: there are no small streets or crossings of any kind between Allen and William. Do you mean further down the trail? For example, John St. is an obvious location where the trail should be considered the superior route and traffic on John St. should yield entirely. My personal preference would be to install bollards to force all John St. traffic to travel through a single lane 3m wide at the trail, with traffic signals set to red for both directions which would clear to green for one direction at a time (and give the trail a red) when a sensor detected traffic.

I believe they were referring to the trail along Caroline...which you might call part of the IHT, or the Laurel trail.

Sorry, yes, now I see those magic letters “IHT” in the message to which I was replying, so indeed there are crossings at Fullerton, Normal, and Freemont. Yes, those would all be reasonable to explicitly subordinate to the trail.


RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 06-13-2021

(06-13-2021, 05:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Even if the trail was a road, the region still would not install a traffic signal, it wasn't because it was a trail, it is because it is too close to the other intersection. The city did request, because city staff feel that it is warranted, but the regional engineers did not agree. It would take regional council to override them.

Thanks for the clarification — I misunderstood, thinking it was specifically related to it being a trail rather than a street. Maybe as an alternative the traffic light at Belmont should be removed and replaced by stop signs!

Quote:The signal system is an integrated system, the signals, in theory are all connected together and synchronized, to a central system. The region runs that system, therefore they run all the traffic signals in the region. It would be a very bad idea for the city to run a parallel system...if it is even legally possible given the region's mandate. A unified system makes sense to me, but what is surprising is that the regional engineering staff ALSO have complete control signals on city streets. Yes, there is some synchronization question, but it would be logical for city staff to have at least and equal seat at the table.

I’m not talking about a parallel system, but a separate signal. As far as I know, PXOs light up as soon as one presses the button without regard for nearby traffic signals; traffic is then required to stop. So it wouldn’t really be any different for a full signal to begin switching to giving the trail a green as soon as the button is pushed.

If PXOs actually are integrated then my logic is incorrect but that’s not what I recall observing.

That being said, I agree the cities should have more say over what happens, especially a locations not involving a Regional road. Just because the Region runs the system doesn’t mean they should be able to tell other jurisdictions how to run things.


RE: Trails - bpoland - 06-13-2021

(06-13-2021, 07:36 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: ... crossings at Fullerton, Norman, and Freemont ...

Yep those are the ones I'm thinking of, would be so much nicer if the trail was smooth. There's also the odd curves in the trail just north of Allen Sad


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-13-2021

(06-13-2021, 07:48 PM)bpoland Wrote:
(06-13-2021, 07:36 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: ... crossings at Fullerton, Norman, and Freemont ...

Yep those are the ones I'm thinking of, would be so much nicer if the trail was smooth.  There's also the odd curves in the trail just north of Allen Sad

Yeah, those curves make no sense...it's like they're trolling cyclists.


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-14-2021

(06-13-2021, 07:42 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(06-13-2021, 05:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Even if the trail was a road, the region still would not install a traffic signal, it wasn't because it was a trail, it is because it is too close to the other intersection. The city did request, because city staff feel that it is warranted, but the regional engineers did not agree. It would take regional council to override them.

Thanks for the clarification — I misunderstood, thinking it was specifically related to it being a trail rather than a street. Maybe as an alternative the traffic light at Belmont should be removed and replaced by stop signs!

Lol...I'd love to see the looks on the regional engineers faces.

(06-13-2021, 07:42 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
Quote:The signal system is an integrated system, the signals, in theory are all connected together and synchronized, to a central system. The region runs that system, therefore they run all the traffic signals in the region. It would be a very bad idea for the city to run a parallel system...if it is even legally possible given the region's mandate. A unified system makes sense to me, but what is surprising is that the regional engineering staff ALSO have complete control signals on city streets. Yes, there is some synchronization question, but it would be logical for city staff to have at least and equal seat at the table.

I’m not talking about a parallel system, but a separate signal. As far as I know, PXOs light up as soon as one presses the button without regard for nearby traffic signals; traffic is then required to stop. So it wouldn’t really be any different for a full signal to begin switching to giving the trail a green as soon as the button is pushed.

If PXOs actually are integrated then my logic is incorrect but that’s not what I recall observing.

That being said, I agree the cities should have more say over what happens, especially a locations not involving a Regional road. Just because the Region runs the system doesn’t mean they should be able to tell other jurisdictions how to run things.

I believe they are all integrated, it's not a matter of how they interact but of how it is setup. I suspect is capable much smarter programming, than it is given, even PXOs (which often do not change immediately...because again...we suck).

Like I said, I don't know if it's legally possible, but I don't actually think it's a good idea...the traffic signal system costs millions of dollars, it would be silly to have the city duplicate that system just for one signal (or even a few). That being said, the real solution is to have a less regressive region.


RE: Trails - tomh009 - 06-14-2021

(06-14-2021, 08:27 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I believe they are all integrated, it's not a matter of how they interact but of how it is setup. I suspect is capable much smarter programming, than it is given, even PXOs (which often do not change immediately...because again...we suck).

Maybe integrated PXOs exist. Maybe we even have them. But certainly it's not an inherent part of the PXO spec. Some product examples at this link, and I believe none are integrated with traffic light management:
https://carmanah.com/resources/ontario-traffic-manual-pedestrian-crossovers/


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-14-2021

(06-14-2021, 04:50 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(06-14-2021, 08:27 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I believe they are all integrated, it's not a matter of how they interact but of how it is setup. I suspect is capable much smarter programming, than it is given, even PXOs (which often do not change immediately...because again...we suck).

Maybe integrated PXOs exist. Maybe we even have them. But certainly it's not an inherent part of the PXO spec. Some product examples at this link, and I believe none are integrated with traffic light management:
https://carmanah.com/resources/ontario-traffic-manual-pedestrian-crossovers/

Sorry, my mistake, I misunderstood the question, even though I managed to repeat it.

No, PXOs are not integrated, which is why the city can install them, even when regional engineers disagree.

What I meant is that pedestrian signals are integrated into the system. We could not install one separate from the region's system.


RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 06-14-2021

(06-14-2021, 06:02 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(06-14-2021, 04:50 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Maybe integrated PXOs exist. Maybe we even have them. But certainly it's not an inherent part of the PXO spec. Some product examples at this link, and I believe none are integrated with traffic light management:
https://carmanah.com/resources/ontario-traffic-manual-pedestrian-crossovers/

Sorry, my mistake, I misunderstood the question, even though I managed to repeat it.

No, PXOs are not integrated, which is why the city can install them, even when regional engineers disagree.

What I meant is that pedestrian signals are integrated into the system. We could not install one separate from the region's system.

But that’s my point. I don’t see why a pedestrian signal has to be integrated. If it’s OK for a non-integrated PXO to stop traffic without regard for the state of the main traffic signal system, it’s OK for a non-integrated pedestrian signal to stop traffic without regard for the state of the main traffic signal system. Either way, traffic is stopped on demand whenever somebody on the trail pushes a button.


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-14-2021

(06-14-2021, 08:26 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(06-14-2021, 06:02 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Sorry, my mistake, I misunderstood the question, even though I managed to repeat it.

No, PXOs are not integrated, which is why the city can install them, even when regional engineers disagree.

What I meant is that pedestrian signals are integrated into the system. We could not install one separate from the region's system.

But that’s my point. I don’t see why a pedestrian signal has to be integrated. If it’s OK for a non-integrated PXO to stop traffic without regard for the state of the main traffic signal system, it’s OK for a non-integrated pedestrian signal to stop traffic without regard for the state of the main traffic signal system. Either way, traffic is stopped on demand whenever somebody on the trail pushes a button.

Because a PXO is not a programmable system. It's just a flashing light. A traffic signal, even one for peds, is much more complex, it has programmable timings, it can be synchronized with other signals, it responds to fire vehicle signalling devices, and could respond to transit vehicles, and these features can be controlled centrally.

Yes, Kitchener could technically buy and install all this equipment but it would cost millions of dollars, and that's assuming it's even legal for us to do so within the existing confines of our governmental system.


RE: Trails - dtkvictim - 06-14-2021

(06-13-2021, 10:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(06-13-2021, 07:48 PM)bpoland Wrote: Yep those are the ones I'm thinking of, would be so much nicer if the trail was smooth.  There's also the odd curves in the trail just north of Allen Sad

Yeah, those curves make no sense...it's like they're trolling cyclists.

Raised crossings would be great, but I don't really get the complaint about the curves. It adds, what, half a second to your trip? But it makes it a little more interesting! I see historically the curve existed to accommodate on-street parking which is frustrating, but now it provides space for some trees (and is the only block next to the LRT with trees), which I would gladly have a little curve for.


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-14-2021

(06-14-2021, 10:00 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:
(06-13-2021, 10:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Yeah, those curves make no sense...it's like they're trolling cyclists.

Raised crossings would be great, but I don't really get the complaint about the curves. It adds, what, half a second to your trip? But it makes it a little more interesting! I see historically the curve existed to accommodate on-street parking which is frustrating, but now it provides space for some trees (and is the only block next to the LRT with trees), which I would gladly have a little curve for.

If you're alone on the trail, they're not much of a problem when walking or on a bike, but if you are on a bike and there is another trail user, either going the opposite direction, or walking in the same direction, it's awkward and tight. I know from experience. You'll notice on streetview, the new curves are even tighter than the old ones. If you wanted keep some curves, they could have been wider, with greater trail width at the curve, or the trees could have gone on the other side where they would be less likely to interfere with the LRT and the trail would have been straight.

As is, it's just a bad design. If they build a road like that, they'd lose their license.