Cycling in Waterloo Region

[danbrotherston]

I've been looking at the satellite photos of Northfield over the Expressway, and I must admit that I just don't see away to do that bike lane any differently.

The most unique suggestion I saw was that you could remove the bike lanes and add a 3 meter MUT (or wider if you also lose the sidewalks) along the middle of the ION right of way. That would be very protected and very safe. That was suggested and rejected by the team.

It wouldn't be ideal for peds and cyclists, because you'd have to cross at the northfield station and again at Colby, but if they were willing to time the lights reasonably it could be done.

Of course, since there is room for a MUT you could easily have put one on the south side (4.5 meters wide 2x 1.5 m bike lanes + 1.5m sidewalk at least) still not ideal because you struggle to reconnect with the bike lanes on the other side.

Of course, we can also imagine some more drastic solutions. For example, the crossing could be brought to a signalized intersection and the slip ramps removed. Yes, this would slow drivers slight...the horror, but the crossing could be made safe there and there'd also be no need for the extra lane on the bridge giving enough space for MUTs on both sides.

Ultimately there's lots of options but all of them involve reducing the prioritization for cars.

[the_conestoga_guy]

I can’t remember the name of the project, but isn’t there a pedestrian bridge proposed to the south of the Northfield bridge as part of a new condo development? It stands out in my mind because I recall a heated debate about the virtues of bridges versus tunnels for such a crossing.

[danbrotherston]

I can’t remember the name of the project, but isn’t there a pedestrian bridge proposed to the south of the Northfield bridge as part of a new condo development? It stands out in my mind because I recall a heated debate about the virtues of bridges versus tunnels for such a crossing.

Yeah...I remember that as well...and I'm sure I was one of the ones arguing about tunnel or bridge.

I also cannot remember the name, but I don't think that would eliminate the problem of Northfield, it seemed to me it would act as more of a local connection.

[timc]

I can’t remember the name of the project, but isn’t there a pedestrian bridge proposed to the south of the Northfield bridge as part of a new condo development? It stands out in my mind because I recall a heated debate about the virtues of bridges versus tunnels for such a crossing.

That would be part of the Kraus development proposal.

https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/...p?tid=1587

[ac3r]

I've been looking at the satellite photos of Northfield over the Expressway, and I must admit that I just don't see away to do that bike lane any differently.

Investing in a pedestrian/cyclist bridge over the expressway could have been possible...but that would have required spending more money than on just a couple buckets of paint. It would have been the best solution though instead of having bikes contend with an unprotected bike lane, 4 lanes of fast moving traffic, a partial cloverleaf interchange with 4 lanes of traffic mixing to/from a fast moving expressway, often congested and impatient traffic whenever both the slow LRT and its screwy signaling cause traffic to get backed up and plenty of other issues.

And since they want to densify this area (though it's Waterloo, who knows if that'll ever happen) then investing now in infrastructure is smart. I know the Kraus development has proposed a bridge and that's great, but we shouldn't have to rely on private companies to handle infrastructure like this (nor would I want to, they could decide to close it to public if they wanted).

However, given that it's in basically an industrial park area, the likelihood of better pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure investment around here is probably impossible. Maybe if there were more people living around here then we could have seen something different, but as it stands now...few people bike around here on this death trap or even if they had a bridge. And while there are some developments proposed, those will probably not be done for many years, assuming they even get built.

But just imagine if the region was daring and had any will power and pride in this region. We could have something gorgeous like this pedestrian/cyclist bridge designed by 64North which goes over a highway in Palo Alto, California - one of the most car-centric places in the world. It acts as infrastructure for transportation, but it also has some unique features: a second bridge with benches that overlook a forested area; underneath the bridge is a walkway which overlooks a pond; the pond and some added surrounding greenery filters storm water run off from the highways, allowing the pond the act as a filter to clean it as it seeps through the ground (they also clean grey water here, aka water discharge from houses/businesses...so sinks etc, not sewage). Best of all, it's made of COR-TEN steel!

Meanwhile in Waterloo Region and the cities...we're lucky to get them to install bollards on dangerous bike lanes because those on council are way too fiscally conservative and lack any willpower or foresight in their geriatric stages. It's a shame.

[ijmorlan]

Meanwhile in Waterloo Region and the cities...we're lucky to get them to install bollards on dangerous bike lanes because those on council are way too fiscally conservative and lack any willpower or foresight in their geriatric stages. It's a shame.

Awesome photos!

The only thing I have to disagree with is your characterization of the politicians involved as fiscally conservative.

I’m pretty sure we could pay for every piece of bicycle infrastructure ever proposed by just easing off a little on the car infrastructure; probably even by just not building (and maintaining) lanes that aren’t justified from an engineering perspective, never mind actually deciding that it’s OK for a road to be congested at rush hour.

[ac3r]

That's true, but then that would require a reduction in what we invest in cars...good luck with that, haha.

The best way for this region as a whole to continue to evolve in a positive, progressive manner would be by having younger and more progressive people get involved with politics. Most of the council - whether it's regional or in the 3 different cities - are old people. There's nothing wrong with that, but certain generations tend to think certain ways and they understand the game a lot more (i.e. how to appeal to their constituents so they stay in power). Younger politicians, on the other hand, are from a newer generation who tend to have much better understandings of various problems and issues. They can also be much more willing to take chances in terms of how they vote on things, what they do with money, how they deal with bad PR from angry NIMBYS etc.

But yeah. There's a lot involved, but most of all regardless of how the region/cities tackle projects, it takes a bold, new, progressive vision for things. Fresh ideas, new minds, broader understandings/theories/goals. This entire Northfield thing is a disaster, but I was surprised to read Bytor's comment that "I've been looking at the satellite photos of Northfield over the Expressway, and I must admit that I just don't see away to do that bike lane any differently.". For me, one look at the satellite photos and my architect mind is overlaying mental sketches on what I'm seeing and thinking of all sorts of creative ways you could safely get people across this awful stretch of road. The biggest issues are things like a lack of vision, money (where it comes from, how much would be willing to be spent, not pissing off tax-conscious residents when something has a high price tag) and political will power - or in our local case, a general lack of it.

I should just become Regional Chair and the mayor of all 3 cities...why not president of GRT while we're at it. I'll turn us into the best (and best looking) North American city there ever has been. :^P

[Bytor]

I've been looking at the satellite photos of Northfield over the Expressway, and I must admit that I just don't see away to do that bike lane any differently.

The most unique suggestion I saw was that you could remove the bike lanes and add a 3 meter MUT (or wider if you also lose the sidewalks) along the middle of the ION right of way. That would be very protected and very safe. That was suggested and rejected by the team.

It wouldn't be ideal for peds and cyclists, because you'd have to cross at the northfield station and again at Colby, but if they were willing to time the lights reasonably it could be done.

Of course, since there is room for a MUT you could easily have put one on the south side (4.5 meters wide 2x 1.5 m bike lanes + 1.5m sidewalk at least) still not ideal because you struggle to reconnect with the bike lanes on the other side.

Of course, we can also imagine some more drastic solutions. For example, the crossing could be brought to a signalized intersection and the slip ramps removed. Yes, this would slow drivers slight...the horror, but the crossing could be made safe there and there'd also be no need for the extra lane on the bridge giving enough space for MUTs on both sides.

Ultimately there's lots of options but all of them involve reducing the prioritization for cars.

A MUT in the middle of the ION right of way is ridiculous. First off there are the catenary poles. Second, the centre lines of the tracks are 4.5m and the sides of the trams are less than 2m apart when the so there's not enough room in the for a MUT even without catenary poles.

[ac3r]

Nevermind the size issues, who would think it would be a wise idea to put a MUT beside an active train line? That's a ridiculous suggestion indeed. Even with a fence, that's an awful suggestion for the placement of a bike lane. Would you want a bike trail right between two activite freight tracks that had freight trains every 10 minutes even if it had a fence? Lol.

[dtkvictim]

Nevermind the size issues, who would think it would be a wise idea to put a MUT beside an active train line? That's a ridiculous suggestion indeed. Even with a fence, that's an awful suggestion for the placement of a bike lane. Would you want a bike trail right between two activite freight tracks that had freight trains every 10 minutes even if it had a fence? Lol.

That sounds like a huge upgrade over being between two high speed car lanes, where cars are actively crossing over the bike lane, and there is no protection like a fence. Trains stay on their very predictable paths, and these are LRT tracks, so I'm not sure what the freight train suggestion is about.

Absolutely not an ideal solution, but still 100% better than what we have.

Nevermind the size issues, who would think it would be a wise idea to put a MUT beside an active train line?

And just to be a little annoying to you, because I'm aware the contexts are quite different, but: IHT? Spur line trail? Laurel trail?

[ijmorlan]

Nevermind the size issues, who would think it would be a wise idea to put a MUT beside an active train line? That's a ridiculous suggestion indeed. Even with a fence, that's an awful suggestion for the placement of a bike lane. Would you want a bike trail right between two activite freight tracks that had freight trains every 10 minutes even if it had a fence? Lol.

Total nonsense. If it’s OK to have a bicycle lane separated from a motor vehicle lane with a 60km/h speed limit by 10cm of paint, then it’s OK to have a bicycle lane separated from an LRT line by a low chain link fence.

And to the other person who was concerned about the space between the 2 LRT tracks: the proposal is not to put a path between the tracks where they are. The idea is an alternate way the LRT could have been taken across the bridge which would have been better than what was built. Very simply, instead of this:

sidewalk, bike lane, 2 motor vehicle lanes, 2 LRT tracks, 2 motor vehicle lanes, bike lane, sidewalk

… you would instead have this:

2 motor vehicle lanes, LRT track, MUT, LRT track, 2 motor vehicle lanes. Based on the width of the existing sidewalks and bike lanes, that would give about 6m of space for the MUT, which would probably make it the widest one in the city. The MUT in the centre would run from Colby Dr. to the spur line. Note that it would have absolutely no conflicts with traffic at all in that space. At either end one would have a signalized crossing to both the north and south sides of Northfield. This means that for somebody who needs to cross Northfield, if they do so by crossing to the centre MUT, then take it to the other end, then finish crossing Northfield, effectively they have no crossings; and if somebody needs to stay on the same side of Northfield then they have two crossings of one direction, or the equivalent of crossing a major street once.

In short, it would be awesome, and none of the objections I have seen are prohibitive.

Next time, I’ll talk about diverging diamond interchanges…

[ac3r]

I can't be bothered to tell you why most of you are wrong on this form these days, I just stay quiet. Clearly almost nobody on this forum works in the professional architecture/planning/engineering/design/traffic industry world. So many bad takes here, especially in the infrastructure section. This place is a goldmine.

It is pretty funny at least. Lots of seriously bad take content that has made it to a few big 'bad engineering takes' or 'bad planning takes' meme accounts from here. ⭐

[dtkvictim]

I can't be bothered to tell you why most of you are wrong on this form these days, I just stay quiet.

If that was the case, you wouldn't have made this provocative and unproductive post.

At the risk of being proven an idiot if I'm wrong about your experience, I would also call out that you are projecting your own expertise into fields you don't know about just as much as everyone else here. Though interestingly one major overlap I do see between your profession and infrastructure engineering is the consideration required to the experience of the end user, cyclists in this case, which you are blatantly ignoring. The bottom line is that the current bicycle lanes are virtually unusable, whereas I, someone who is conservative in my choice of safe infrastructure, would gladly use a center median cycle track protected on both sides by a fence and train track buffer. Center median cycle tracks succeed in cities all over the world, even if in more pleasant contexts. It's not the most ideal, nor most comfortable option, but no one has been arguing that it is. I don't need those from the self-aggrandizing architecture profession bestowing my preferences upon me, because I don't know better, as they so often do.

So please, now and always, do tell us when and why we are wrong, or else I can only assume you can't. Apologies for sounding irate, I'm willing to eat my words here, but it's what you were fishing for anyways.

[danbrotherston]

The most unique suggestion I saw was that you could remove the bike lanes and add a 3 meter MUT (or wider if you also lose the sidewalks) along the middle of the ION right of way. That would be very protected and very safe. That was suggested and rejected by the team.

It wouldn't be ideal for peds and cyclists, because you'd have to cross at the northfield station and again at Colby, but if they were willing to time the lights reasonably it could be done.

Of course, since there is room for a MUT you could easily have put one on the south side (4.5 meters wide 2x 1.5 m bike lanes + 1.5m sidewalk at least) still not ideal because you struggle to reconnect with the bike lanes on the other side.

Of course, we can also imagine some more drastic solutions. For example, the crossing could be brought to a signalized intersection and the slip ramps removed. Yes, this would slow drivers slight...the horror, but the crossing could be made safe there and there'd also be no need for the extra lane on the bridge giving enough space for MUTs on both sides.

Ultimately there's lots of options but all of them involve reducing the prioritization for cars.

A MUT in the middle of the ION right of way is ridiculous. First off there are the catenary poles. Second, the centre lines of the tracks are 4.5m and the sides of the trams are less than 2m apart when the so there's not enough room in the for a MUT even without catenary poles.

Like I said, if the bike lanes are removed there is >3 meters of space available that could be moved to between the tracks. More than enough space for a MUT.

It wasn't my ideal, I was just impressed with the creativity. If the MTO is unwilling to get rid of dangerous slip ramps, this moves all cyclists and pedestrians away from all the slip ramps. (and if you want even more space, move the sidewalk there too).

[danbrotherston]

Nevermind the size issues, who would think it would be a wise idea to put a MUT beside an active train line? That's a ridiculous suggestion indeed. Even with a fence, that's an awful suggestion for the placement of a bike lane. Would you want a bike trail right between two activite freight tracks that had freight trains every 10 minutes even if it had a fence? Lol.

We put MUTs next to roads all the time. Roads are WAY more dangerous than the ION right of way...hell. The region wants you to bike WITH buses on Duke st...coming every 1-2 minutes.

But you think it's unsafe to be next to the ION right of way? This is the kind of broken safety thinking that gets us murder lanes next to an LRT that is restricted to 10-40 km/h under the limit of cars right next to it.