Avalon Place Highway 7/8 Multi-Use Trail Crossing

[KevinL]

Oddly they missed a section [of multi-use path] - between the two driveways behind Zehrs it's still sidewalk!

This oversight is finally getting fixed. 

[cherrypark]

Oddly they missed a section [of multi-use path] - between the two driveways behind Zehrs it's still sidewalk!

This oversight is finally getting fixed. 

Thank goodness. And glad this one didn't replicate sticking a road sign in half of the road side MUT lane. I will never understand how those get approved.

[KevinL]

All finished! Looks like the road curb had to be redone as part of it, which might be what delayed this segment.

[timc]

If it's a pedestrian crossing, should there be tactile tiles there?

[neonjoe]

If it's a pedestrian crossing, should there be tactile tiles there?

I think they only do that at road crossings. This is a driveway.

[Kodra24]

I love to see that cyclists should share the road with pedestrians instead of cars, finally some common sense

[danbrotherston]

Does anyone know the final cost of this bridge? If I recall it was around $10 million.

It's interesting to compare it with this cycling overpass in the Netherlands discussed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEJDd0tWv-8

For only 2 million euros (in 2010), they built a much nicer bridge, including artwork, and with a main span of 280 meters. There are probably some (unnecessary) additional constraints imposed on the Avalon Place bridge. I believe the MTO needlessly required the main span to be suspended completely unsupported over the roadway.

But even so, even adjusting for inflation and the currently very weak Canadian dollar this is 2x the price of the bridge in the Netherlands.

I remember having sticker shock about this bridge when it was proposed, and I think we're also seeing our road infrastructure become exponentially more expensive.

Honestly, whether you want car infra or transit or bikes, doesn't matter. The out of control costs are going to be a problem for everyone. The only ones who benefit from this are the consultants/construction firms, and the people who wish to see absolutely nothing change ever (although I doubt those people are ever actually happy).

It's a nice bridge...and it's an opportunity to improve the cycling grid in the city...but it is not an efficient use of money, and the main motivation was not cycling, as I recall, but transit metrics.

[creative]

You literally are unable to post without adding a negative point of view. Please provide a link to the motivation of this bridge being built to improve transit metrics. And again, why do you care, you left.

[Acitta]

Does anyone know the final cost of this bridge? If I recall it was around $10 million.

It's interesting to compare it with this cycling overpass in the Netherlands discussed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEJDd0tWv-8

For only 2 million euros (in 2010), they built a much nicer bridge, including artwork, and with a main span of 280 meters. There are probably some (unnecessary) additional constraints imposed on the Avalon Place bridge. I believe the MTO needlessly required the main span to be suspended completely unsupported over the roadway.

But even so, even adjusting for inflation and the currently very weak Canadian dollar this is 2x the price of the bridge in the Netherlands.

I remember having sticker shock about this bridge when it was proposed, and I think we're also seeing our road infrastructure become exponentially more expensive.

Honestly, whether you want car infra or transit or bikes, doesn't matter. The out of control costs are going to be a problem for everyone. The only ones who benefit from this are the consultants/construction firms, and the people who wish to see absolutely nothing change ever (although I doubt those people are ever actually happy).

It's a nice bridge...and it's an opportunity to improve the cycling grid in the city...but it is not an efficient use of money, and the main motivation was not cycling, as I recall, but transit metrics.

This bridge has been well-used since it officially opened (and even before). It allows pedestrians and cyclists to avoid the two roundabouts on Ottawa to get to the Laurentian Power Centre. I have walked across it several times.

[creative]

Thanks Acitta for the update and positive post.

[danbrotherston]

You literally are unable to post without adding a negative point of view. Please provide a link to the motivation of this bridge being built to improve transit metrics. And again, why do you care, you left.

It was explicitly stated by staff when it was proposed (you forget, it's taken so long to build that I was literally there at the meetings when this was being discussed). It allows them to include a large number of homes across the highway on the Avalon Pl. side in the walk shed of the bus stop on Chandler Dr. thereby increasing the transit coverage without running more buses.

There's nothing wrong with this, I never said there was. But it does explain WHY they chose THIS particular piece of infrastructure.

Now, I might be willing to dig up the report for you, but seeing as you feel the need to downvote me, and publicly attack me for calling out a legitimate issue (cost) with Canadian infrastructure, I'm not going to bother doing the work for you. If you choose not to believe me, I don't care.

[timc]

The report was linked in the very first post in this thread. Of course, it has disappeared in ROW website redesign, but the Wayback Machine has a copy:

https://web.archive.org/web/201711142034...on_pdf.pdf

Paragraph 1:

The Region of Waterloo has initiated this Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA), Preliminary
and Detail Design assignment for the planning and design of a Highway 7/8 Multi-Use Trail Crossing
between Chandler Drive and Avalon Place. The crossing is proposed to improve connectivity to existing
transit services, and to the adjacent residential, commercial and industrial developments. The project will
support Official Plan objectives for increased transit ridership.

[plam]

You literally are unable to post without adding a negative point of view. Please provide a link to the motivation of this bridge being built to improve transit metrics. And again, why do you care, you left.

I think it's totally appropriate to discuss the high cost of infrastructure in North America. We need more infrastructure. Not good if it's always expensive, because we get much less from our $. (For what it's worth, NZ also has the "expensive infrastructure" problem).

[KevinL]

My understanding is that the 'consultancy model' so common in North America is a big part of the issue - governments have gradually let in-house expertise go away to the private sector, and thus for anything deeply technical they must hire that expertise at a premium.

If instead, say, the provincial government kept a large team of civil servants with the relevant knowhow in-house that cities, regions, or other agencies could call upon, that could bring broader savings overall (and help establish standards provincewide). This expertise could extend to not just designers and engineers, but actual builders and contractors, who could lean on those provincial standards to bulk purchase and mass produce standard infrastructure elements.

But that system has a lot of up-front cost, and our current brand of politics frowns on such long-term thinking. Alas.

[plam]

My understanding is that the 'consultancy model' so common in North America is a big part of the issue - governments have gradually let in-house expertise go away to the private sector, and thus for anything deeply technical they must hire that expertise at a premium.

If instead, say, the provincial government kept a large team of civil servants with the relevant knowhow in-house that cities, regions, or other agencies could call upon, that could bring broader savings overall (and help establish standards provincewide). This expertise could extend to not just designers and engineers, but actual builders and contractors, who could lean on those provincial standards to bulk purchase and mass produce standard infrastructure elements.

But that system has a lot of up-front cost, and our current brand of politics frowns on such long-term thinking. Alas.

I read something about this in industry too. From dan hon's newsletter and developing capacity---in this case, for software development:

"Some organizations do. They also take the opportunity to outsource all software development. You can then lay off all your software development capacity. It saves money, after all. Why not leave the software making to the people who concentrate on that?

But that’s not what it looks like Vox did. What Vox did was start working on the next thing, the next bet for what would make them distinctive. And that’s this Communities product."

I kind of think it's what MBAs say to do but it's not actually good. There should really be more in-house expertise for a bunch of things.