Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cycling in Waterloo Region
(07-26-2022, 12:31 AM)ac3r Wrote: 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. ⭐

If what I’ve said is so obviously wrong, you should be able to explain briefly why. I might not be 100% convinced, but it should at least be possible for you to make me stop and think without having to write a whole book on the matter.

May we start with the centre-lane MUT idea? What exactly is wrong with it, taking into account what I’ve already said about it further up? For example, we know that according to engineers, it’s A-OK to have bicycles 10cm from motor vehicle traffic. So the problem with the centre-lane idea can’t possibly be that we would have only a low fence separating bicycles from occasional LRT vehicles.

I’d be interested to see where this stuff has shown up. Sounds fascinating. But our urban planners and engineers have built enough really bad stuff that I don’t necessarily take their disapproval as meaning anything.
Reply


(07-26-2022, 03:27 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(07-25-2022, 06:25 PM)Bytor Wrote: 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).

Closer to 6m if you move the sidewalks to the centre also. The biggest question becomes whether the pedestrians should have a single lane in the middle between the two directions of bicycle traffic or if the sides should be dedicated to pedestrians.

Imagine 2m bicycles eastbound, 2m pedestrians, 2m bicycles westbound. Is infrastructure that good provided anywhere else in the city? I can’t think of where. This would be worse in other ways (noisy road traffic on both sides rather than grass and trees), but in terms of the amount of space provided it would be top-notch.
Reply
(07-26-2022, 02:28 AM)dtkvictim Wrote: Something about bikes...
Me too, so let's not pretend we need to settle for mediocrity with silly suggestions that we bike in the middle of active train lines and in gutters they pour green paint on in order for us to do this. Cyclists in this region deserve proper infrastructure that is safe, secure and looks aesthetically beautiful in order to make it an integral part of the urban fabric. It just takes some daring people to turn something like Stephen Wenzel's 2015 thesis on cycle infrastructure done at the University of Waterloo School of Architecture into reality. Or we can look at the complex network of cycle paths and different styles of streets in countries like Denmark, Netherlands, Finland etc. Because it's visions like these that are meaningful, not bike gutters.

I highly recommend checking out this thesis above for a good in-depth look on implementing cycle infrastructure that goes beyond a few YouTube videos. Not only is it really well researched with a lot of great ideas, it's done right here by a BA and MA student who graduated from the University of Waterloo.
Reply
I think the best that can be hoped for for Northfield is that this project's full buildout including the bridge over the highway gets built

https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/...p?tid=1587
Reply
Ontario St cycling grid nearing completion (unfortunately, not would it should have been). It seems to just be missing a bit of paint, most notably for the King St maneuvers, and the bicycle traffic lights. Hopefully we won't be waiting on the lights for what seemed likes months again as we did on Joseph St.

I wonder if the LRT warning signs will remain at the Charles St intersection since a no right on red sign has been added, though I feel they shouldn't have been needed in the first place.

One maneuver I'm really curious about is the priority of cyclists turning right to Joseph St vs cars turn right to Ontario St. Anyone know how this will work?

[Image: jyRCvkK.jpg][Image: ON0TzP1.jpg]
Reply
(07-26-2022, 01:35 PM)neonjoe Wrote: I think the best that can be hoped for for Northfield is that this project's full buildout including the bridge over the highway gets built

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

At this point, I agree, that's the most likely medium term improvement to the road.

It shows just how low the bar is.
Reply
(07-27-2022, 01:31 AM)dtkvictim Wrote: Ontario St cycling grid nearing completion (unfortunately, not would it should have been). It seems to just be missing a bit of paint, most notably for the King St maneuvers, and the bicycle traffic lights. Hopefully we won't be waiting on the lights for what seemed likes months again as we did on Joseph St.

I wonder if the LRT warning signs will remain at the Charles St intersection since a no right on red sign has been added, though I feel they shouldn't have been needed in the first place.

One maneuver I'm really curious about is the priority of cyclists turning right to Joseph St vs cars turn right to Ontario St. Anyone know how this will work?

[Image: jyRCvkK.jpg][Image: ON0TzP1.jpg]

Thanks for the pictures!

I'm still shocked though...they flipped the bike lane to the other side of the road...I have no idea why? There are so SO many more turning conflicts over there. I can only assume that it is someone at the region practising the usual shitty engineering they are so infamous for at this point.
Reply


Probably to do with the alignment offset of Ontario at Charles. The side they put it on would have a straighter path through the intersection.
Reply
(07-27-2022, 09:26 AM)cherrypark Wrote: Probably to do with the alignment offset of Ontario at Charles. The side they put it on would have a straighter path through the intersection.

I'm not sure I understand...the bike lane doesn't change the alignment of the intersection does it?
Reply
(07-26-2022, 12:23 PM)ac3r Wrote: Me too, so let's not pretend we need to settle for mediocrity with silly suggestions that we bike in the middle of active train lines and in gutters they pour green paint on in order for us to do this. Cyclists in this region deserve proper infrastructure that is safe, secure and looks aesthetically beautiful in order to make it an integral part of the urban fabric. It just takes some daring people to turn something like Stephen Wenzel's 2015 thesis on cycle infrastructure done at the University of Waterloo School of Architecture into reality. Or we can look at the complex network of cycle paths and different styles of streets in countries like Denmark, Netherlands, Finland etc. Because it's visions like these that are meaningful, not bike gutters.

Still not even an attempt at explaining what is wrong with putting the bicycle path between the LRT tracks.

It’s OK, apparently, to sandwich the active transportation between the edge of the bridge and motor vehicle traffic driven every random idiot in the city, separated by nothing more than 10cm of paint, and with freeway ramps crossing. How is riding next to a low-traffic (one vehicle every 10 minutes) LRT track with no crossing of other routes any worse? Slagging it as “in the middle of active train lines” is just meaningless word-painting that will give an incorrect impression in the minds of people who are unfamiliar with the situation of what is actually being proposed and what it would be like.

I’ll agree that a separate bridge for bicyclists and pedestrians would be awesome, but if you’re going to call the centre-lane idea silly I think you should justify doing so.

Of course you won’t because it’s actually a pretty good idea and there is no actual reason for calling it silly. Prove me wrong, I’m listening, unlike (apparently) you.
Reply
(07-27-2022, 09:37 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(07-27-2022, 09:26 AM)cherrypark Wrote: Probably to do with the alignment offset of Ontario at Charles. The side they put it on would have a straighter path through the intersection.

I'm not sure I understand...the bike lane doesn't change the alignment of the intersection does it?

I meant the road itself. If you look at the intersection overhead it jogs a bit through the intersection but the cycling ROW probably needs less of a shift through there on that side of the road on the account of Ontario becoming 1-way on the other side.

Somewhat trivial, but I could see that being a rationale. Or maybe just the uncertainty of the Charles St. redevelopment? Just speculating.
Reply
(07-27-2022, 10:58 AM)cherrypark Wrote:
(07-27-2022, 09:37 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'm not sure I understand...the bike lane doesn't change the alignment of the intersection does it?

I meant the road itself. If you look at the intersection overhead it jogs a bit through the intersection but the cycling ROW probably needs less of a shift through there on that side of the road on the account of Ontario becoming 1-way on the other side.

Somewhat trivial, but I could see that being a rationale. Or maybe just the uncertainty of the Charles St. redevelopment? Just speculating.

This is my best guess. The Region is probably mitigating against the future risk of shutting down this road by installing the cycling lanes on the opposite side of the development. If this is the case, it likely has more to do with saving face (i.e. tearing down the lanes five years after building them would look bad). As someone who occasionally cycles down in this area, I don't really care which side of the road the lanes are installed. I'm just happy to have them.
Reply
(07-26-2022, 12:31 AM)ac3r Wrote: 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. ⭐

As someone who isn't a civil/transportation engineer themselves but works on multi-disciplinary teams with them on roadway projects, there have been several instances where I've recalled comments from this website and used them during design coordination meetings. Not necessarily the specific comments themselves, but comments that are applicable to other projects that I'm working on. Project designs are incredibly fluid before the 60% design submission stage, so I've often been able to ask roadway designers to make seemingly tiny changes to their designs if I can make a half-decent argument for them.

I like to think of it as a form of guerrilla urbanism - or at least my own contribution to the greater good.
Reply


(07-27-2022, 10:58 AM)cherrypark Wrote:
(07-27-2022, 09:37 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'm not sure I understand...the bike lane doesn't change the alignment of the intersection does it?

I meant the road itself. If you look at the intersection overhead it jogs a bit through the intersection but the cycling ROW probably needs less of a shift through there on that side of the road on the account of Ontario becoming 1-way on the other side.

Somewhat trivial, but I could see that being a rationale. Or maybe just the uncertainty of the Charles St. redevelopment? Just speculating.

Ahh...I understand what you mean. Yes, that could make sense. I do think it's a bad choice...the conflicts with cars is bad...and protecting the bike lane is going to be even harder with the demand from the plaza (heck, the sidewalk there is routinely blocked by parked cars).

But fortunately I have to neither make those choices...nor live with them.

Sorry guys Tongue.
Reply
(07-27-2022, 04:30 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I can only assume that it is someone at the region practising the usual shitty engineering they are so infamous for at this point.

City of Kitchener project, not Region.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 10 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links