Cycling in Waterloo Region

[danbrotherston]

Here is the presentation file link.

If this is the way things must go, I would really like to see them make an additional effort to reconsider the road surface type, adding more calming measures, and instead of just dropping to 40 kph and "aiming for 30" to just actually implement the speed limit they want. These are short stubs or roads with the no-through traffic restriction, so there is no reason car or bus needs to be going more than that for these short stretches.

Sharrows suck but at least max 30 would get the speed differential a lot closer. Is there some by-law or road building policy that doesn't allow 30 to be used?

This would impact transit service by a few seconds, the very thing they are trying to avoid by killing the bike project.

Let me ask you folks this, I know there is value to limiting car traffic outside of cycling, but from a purely cycling perspective, do you believe that this change will enhance the opportunity for cycling on Duke St in any way?

Like, someone who WOULDN'T have cycled before because they felt intimidated by sharing the road with cars and buses would feel safe and start cycling because of this change?

[cherrypark]

Definitely not as far improved as separated lanes alone. Zero dispute on that.

However, if ** they took this design approach and ** really reduced the speeds (30 kph), changed the surfacing and streetscape to be more driveway like than the current roadway, and added bike boxes, etc. I honestly think yes it does improve it for the average cyclist. I would feel more comfortable using it; maybe a stretch to say though it would be enough for kids, nervous cyclists, etc.

I guess my view is that more of these kinds of streets downtown, if we could start building a precedent for it, would help net improve the downtown cycling and pedestrian experience where dedicated cycling lanes are "not possible". I know you have a different opinion of possible, Dan, but sharing a view here of where more of this kind of thing could maybe be an example of better secondary bike routing where there isn't an obvious space for dedicated lanes.

Does seem that College through to the transit hub terminus would be dedicated, which itself is super considering that section of Duke is maybe the worst of it near Victoria.

** Edited for clarity

[danbrotherston]

Definitely not as far improved as separated lanes alone. Zero dispute on that.

However, if the really reduced the speeds (30 kph), changed the surfacing and streetscape to be more driveway like than the current roadway, and added bike boxes, etc. I honestly think yes it does improve it for the average cyclist. I would feel more comfortable using it; maybe a stretch to say though it would be enough for kids, nervous cyclists, etc.

I guess my view is that more of these kinds of streets downtown, if we could start building a precedent for it, would help net improve the downtown cycling and pedestrian experience where dedicated cycling lanes are "not possible". I know you have a different opinion of possible, Dan, but sharing a view here of where more of this kind of thing could maybe be an example of better secondary bike routing where there isn't an obvious space for dedicated lanes.

Does seem that College through to the transit hub terminus would be dedicated, which itself is super considering that section of Duke is maybe the worst of it near Victoria.

NONE of that is in the region's proposal. They aren't even considering a 30km/h limit, they are only *considering* a 40km/h limit. They aren't proposing any change to the surfacing, or any bike boxes, or anything like that, they claim that the frequent traffic lights are enough to slow traffic, but those already exist...

I don't care about the average cyclist. I'm the average cyclist, in terms of my comfort level, and I can already ride on Duke. Yes, I might find it less uncomfortable with the proposed changes if they reduce traffic somewhat (although not to the levels they claim IMO) but I don't actually matter. The point of the cycling grid is to enable NEW people to cycle.

I personally don't think those changes will do anything to achieve that. People who are (rightly) afraid to cycle with cars, will not change their behaviour even if our downtown roads see less traffic. This was the motivation behind doing the downtown grid in the first place.

So as a result, my opinion is that the threat of "well if this doesn't work, we'll do nothing" is entirely empty from a cycling perspective, and broadly forcing the region into this position would be net positive, because it forces the region to expend considerable political capital and expose itself as the obstacle to cycling as it is.

I'm not saying that it could have other benefits like improving the pedestrian experience and limiting traffic, but I don't believe there's any added value for cycling.

[ijmorlan]

NONE of that is in the region's proposal. They aren't even considering a 30km/h limit, they are only *considering* a 40km/h limit. They aren't proposing any change to the surfacing, or any bike boxes, or anything like that, they claim that the frequent traffic lights are enough to slow traffic, but those already exist...

Anyway, frequent traffic lights are bad for cyclists. Just when you’re getting up some speed, you have to stop again.

[cherrypark]

NONE of that is in the region's proposal. They aren't even considering a 30km/h limit, they are only *considering* a 40km/h limit. They aren't proposing any change to the surfacing, or any bike boxes, or anything like that, they claim that the frequent traffic lights are enough to slow traffic, but those already exist...

Important typo in my message: meant to say *if they* - as in, if this design was at least improved, short of eliminating car or bus traffic two way. 

I don't disagree that a dedicated ROW would be better, I suppose I'm just saying that feedback to the engagement should probably both aim to express that as well as what could make this strategy as good as it can be. Not dissuading any chance to the let the region know their priority balance is still not great! I'll be submitting both points - more courageous and creative solutions needed to make that dedicated ROW possible, but if they won't, at least make the half measure a better one.

And I know you say you are the average cyclist - maybe of those on the roads today - though my framing is more that anyone riding in current DTK is above the average person by way of motivation (or means, if they don't have the means for a car). Agreed the point here is net new cyclists, just that I would say the average person is not one, currently.

[danbrotherston]

NONE of that is in the region's proposal. They aren't even considering a 30km/h limit, they are only *considering* a 40km/h limit. They aren't proposing any change to the surfacing, or any bike boxes, or anything like that, they claim that the frequent traffic lights are enough to slow traffic, but those already exist...

Important typo in my message: meant to say *if they* - as in, if this design was at least improved, short of eliminating car or bus traffic two way. 

I don't disagree that a dedicated ROW would be better, I suppose I'm just saying that feedback to the engagement should probably both aim to express that as well as what could make this strategy as good as it can be. Not dissuading any chance to the let the region know their priority balance is still not great! I'll be submitting both points - more courageous and creative solutions needed to make that dedicated ROW possible, but if they won't, at least make the half measure a better one.

And I know you say you are the average cyclist - maybe of those on the roads today - though my framing is more that anyone riding in current DTK is above the average person by way of motivation (or means, if they don't have the means for a car). Agreed the point here is net new cyclists, just that I would say the average person is not one, currently.

Exactly, the average person is not a cyclist, so the average cyclist is not the average person.

I guess my general point is I think there is more value in standing against the usual mediocre "compromise" they are offering, I believe this kind of thing does more harm than good to cycling.

Drivers see it, as a "war on drivers" but people also won't bike on it, so next time we go to do infra, they say, "when we build infra, nobody uses it".

This isn't an academic argument either, when the region worked on moving forward 2020, they did a non-car focused plan, but they told me, that based on their modeling, cycling infra wouldn't get much usage, and they explained their modeling was based on when they build a bike lane on a road, how much cycling increased.

I honestly cannot tell if they are just this blind, or if they are actively malicious when using modeling like this...but at the end of the day it doesn't matter...building mediocre crap that doesn't increase cycling makes building a cycling network harder.

[plam]

Sharing with buses isn't great but I'd be much more concerned about the cars, even if they can't go straight through. But sharrows are generally suboptimal.

Actually, how would sharing LRT and bus lanes even work? That only helps for one way traffic. There's still southbound traffic that would need to be on the road.

I wouldn't be so sad if they closed it to cars completely, but that somehow doesn't seem to be on the feasibility radar.

Bus traffic is due to go to 20 buses per hour, so one per 3 minutes. You'd have a good chance of not being behind a bus, but you'd also have a good chance of being near a bus.

[cherrypark]

Sharing with buses isn't great but I'd be much more concerned about the cars, even if they can't go straight through. But sharrows are generally suboptimal.

Actually, how would sharing LRT and bus lanes even work? That only helps for one way traffic. There's still southbound traffic that would need to be on the road.

I wouldn't be so sad if they closed it to cars completely, but that somehow doesn't seem to be on the feasibility radar.

Bus traffic is due to go to 20 buses per hour, so one per 3 minutes. You'd have a good chance of not being behind a bus, but you'd also have a good chance of being near a bus.

Dan's idea would be one-way car, two-ways bus using the ION lane. 

The issue for that section is the Region doesn't have enough ROW to do two lanes, ION, and bike but has two ways of bus routing to fit. For all the distance it is on that block between them, it does seem like routing the one way of bus traffic wouldn't be so hard to move over to Weber, especially if the ION was running the counter-flow direction.

[tomh009]

Actually, I would run the (Kitchener) westbound buses on Weber and the eastbound on Duke -- that way there is no need to cross Weber to get from King St to the bus stop.

[the_conestoga_guy]

Actually, I would run the (Kitchener) westbound buses on Weber and the eastbound on Duke -- that way there is no need to cross Weber to get from King St to the bus stop.

I think it's important to maintain the WB buses on Duke, since they'll eventually be accessing the transit hub using this road. **Assuming plans don't change.

[Acitta]

Rebuild of University Avenue in Waterloo aims to improve traffic flow, safety for cyclists and pedestrians
"The Region of Waterloo is refining plans to rebuild the stretch of University Avenue between Weber and Albert streets, to better accommodate pedestrians and cyclists while improving traffic flow."

[bravado]

Rebuild of University Avenue in Waterloo aims to improve traffic flow, safety for cyclists and pedestrians
"The Region of Waterloo is refining plans to rebuild the stretch of University Avenue between Weber and Albert streets, to better accommodate pedestrians and cyclists while improving traffic flow."

University is a giant pedestrian, bike, and bus route - and STILL cars get priority somehow. Wider sidewalks? Separated bike lanes? Dedicated bus lane?

[ijmorlan]

Rebuild of University Avenue in Waterloo aims to improve traffic flow, safety for cyclists and pedestrians
"The Region of Waterloo is refining plans to rebuild the stretch of University Avenue between Weber and Albert streets, to better accommodate pedestrians and cyclists while improving traffic flow."

University is a giant pedestrian, bike, and bus route - and STILL cars get priority somehow. Wider sidewalks? Separated bike lanes? Dedicated bus lane?

I don’t know why they think they need 2 lanes of motor vehicle traffic in each direction. If there are that many lanes one in each direction should just be for buses.

[cherrypark]

Rebuild of University Avenue in Waterloo aims to improve traffic flow, safety for cyclists and pedestrians
"The Region of Waterloo is refining plans to rebuild the stretch of University Avenue between Weber and Albert streets, to better accommodate pedestrians and cyclists while improving traffic flow."

University is a giant pedestrian, bike, and bus route - and STILL cars get priority somehow. Wider sidewalks? Separated bike lanes? Dedicated bus lane?

So pathetic after all the show of that "consultation" that has basically resolved to the status quo with a pittance bike lane addition. Passing through easily one of the most pedestrian and transit oriented corridors with students and this is the attempt to somehow improve it?

[danbrotherston]

This does not surprise me one bit. And in fact, our regional engineers will absolutely believe that they have worked very hard to include as much alternative transportation as possible.

But as usual, the concept of limiting car traffic doesn't even exist for them. In fact, in the proposal they actually increase space for cars (at the expense of transit riders).