Cycling in Waterloo Region

[danbrotherston]

It has some odd landmarks - the Highland Hills Transit Terminal has been inactive nearly a decade now...

*shrug*...I guess it's still in the city's GIS.

And more than a decade I think. I cannot remember seeing it open and I would have been there probably in 2010ish.

[timio]

It has some odd landmarks - the Highland Hills Transit Terminal has been inactive nearly a decade now...

*shrug*...I guess it's still in the city's GIS.

And more than a decade I think. I cannot remember seeing it open and I would have been there probably in 2010ish.

Closed in 2015 with the 204 iXpress and related realignments.
EDIT: Most routes disappeared from it in 2015, however route 22 continued to use it for a few more years until it was completely abandoned.

[danbrotherston]

Can anyone tell me if they've done anything on Benton St? Last time I heard, they were saying they could not improve it due to DoFo criminalising building bike lanes in place of car lanes. I guess I'm exaggerating, it's not a criminal law, but it's still a law.

Alas, Benton St remains the same. 😢

A video from "Shifter" today discusses cycling network gaps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B93phHGSgYs

I kind of wish staff were more willing to take a stand on this. And yes, I don't believe that they can force something to be done about it, (although I think they could ask for MTO approval). However, a professional engineer (that name means something when it comes to every engineering profession EXCEPT transportation) would never sign off on a known deficient and dangerous design.

Staff should say, "if we cannot fix these deficiencies then we cannot call this a cycle route." And then when pushed by council "I'm sorry, but if you've promised a cycle route to your constituents, then you must enable us to build it, we're not going to sign off on a dangerous design to satisfy your political promises".

I mean, it would also be nice if council recognized that compromising the safety of their route was self destructive, but council is politicians, they're supposed to be compromising. Engineers are professionals with a duty of care...they're the ones who are supposed to take a stand against this stuff.

[tomh009]

I kind of wish staff were more willing to take a stand on this. And yes, I don't believe that they can force something to be done about it, (although I think they could ask for MTO approval). However, a professional engineer (that name means something when it comes to every engineering profession EXCEPT transportation) would never sign off on a known deficient and dangerous design.

The road construction design still need a P.Eng. stamp of approval. The problem is that the design criteria (which is what the engineers need to review against) really do not consider active transportation. It's not an engineer problem, it's a design standards problem.

For example, in Markham:
https://www.markham.ca/sites/default/fil...on%20A.pdf

"All municipal roadways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria outlined
in this document and with the Engineering Standard Drawings, and where applicable, the TAC
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, and the Ontario Provincial Standards and
Specifications.

Sidewalks and walkways shall be located and constructed in accordance with the City’s Sidewalk
Policy and the City Standards. "

[danbrotherston]

I kind of wish staff were more willing to take a stand on this. And yes, I don't believe that they can force something to be done about it, (although I think they could ask for MTO approval). However, a professional engineer (that name means something when it comes to every engineering profession EXCEPT transportation) would never sign off on a known deficient and dangerous design.

The road construction design still need a P.Eng. stamp of approval. The problem is that the design criteria (which is what the engineers need to review against) really do not consider active transportation. It's not an engineer problem, it's a design standards problem.

For example, in Markham:
https://www.markham.ca/sites/default/fil...on%20A.pdf

"All municipal roadways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria outlined
in this document and with the Engineering Standard Drawings, and where applicable, the TAC
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, and the Ontario Provincial Standards and
Specifications.

Sidewalks and walkways shall be located and constructed in accordance with the City’s Sidewalk
Policy and the City Standards. "

I was speaking more of the design or designation of active transportation "routes".

Like they're calling things a "route" which has gaps in it. A P.Eng. wouldn't sign off on a road that had a hole in it, so why do they sign off on a bike route that has a hole in it.

[neonjoe]

The road construction design still need a P.Eng. stamp of approval. The problem is that the design criteria (which is what the engineers need to review against) really do not consider active transportation. It's not an engineer problem, it's a design standards problem.

For example, in Markham:
https://www.markham.ca/sites/default/fil...on%20A.pdf

"All municipal roadways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria outlined
in this document and with the Engineering Standard Drawings, and where applicable, the TAC
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, and the Ontario Provincial Standards and
Specifications.

Sidewalks and walkways shall be located and constructed in accordance with the City’s Sidewalk
Policy and the City Standards. "

I was speaking more of the design or designation of active transportation "routes".

Like they're calling things a "route" which has gaps in it. A P.Eng. wouldn't sign off on a road that had a hole in it, so why do they sign off on a bike route that has a hole in it.

The kings highway designation has entered this discussion…
More locally in my neighbourhood there has been two disjointed segments of Amand drive for years.

[tomh009]

I was speaking more of the design or designation of active transportation "routes".

Like they're calling things a "route" which has gaps in it. A P.Eng. wouldn't sign off on a road that had a hole in it, so why do they sign off on a bike route that has a hole in it.

I don't think the "cycling route" name or concept is decided by engineers ...

[danbrotherston]

I was speaking more of the design or designation of active transportation "routes".

Like they're calling things a "route" which has gaps in it. A P.Eng. wouldn't sign off on a road that had a hole in it, so why do they sign off on a bike route that has a hole in it.

I don't think the "cycling route" name or concept is decided by engineers ...

Do transportation planners not hold an engineering degree? Maybe they don't.

In some ways that makes it harder to take a stand, in other ways easier.

I wish someone would take a stand, and honestly that stand is most easily taken by the professional bureaucrats rather than the politicians. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's literally one of the purposes of having bureaucrats.

I really do think building inadequate bike infra (and I include "designating routes" in "building" here) is self defeating at least in most of the country. Oh The Urbanity put out a video just recently https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIPiODsF0v0 and they discuss a lot of what they expect in Montreal from the new vaguely anti-bike gov. It reinforces my opinion that Montreal is unlike any other North American city and is actually a lot like a European city, but in any case, my take from this is that bad cycling infra is actually not going to be self-defeating in Montreal. Cycling is so popular that people who use the infra are still going to end up seduced by the "magic, you can have everything and it's totally fair when we allocate all the road space to cars" party. But because their voters are actually using this infra, they're going to get angry when the stuff they build is shit. On the contrary in KW cycling is so niche that politicians can build shit and then when activists complain everyone just goes "well we built it, these people are never satisfied".

So yeah, I wish people would take a stand on this.

[tomh009]

Do transportation planners not hold an engineering degree? Maybe they don't.

Maybe an urban planning degree or a civil engineering degree. But in either case, likely not a P.Eng.