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
(07-27-2022, 11:27 AM)the_conestoga_guy Wrote: 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.

Awesome. Thanks!
Reply


(07-27-2022, 04:30 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.

So I didn't just imagine that there were proposed on the other side at one point... Personally I would have preferred the other side like you, but mostly because I will be using these lanes to transition to Joseph St in the direction of Victoria, not Queen.

I can see the argument going either way though, between the diagonal jog across Charles St, and the potentially complete lack of curbs along the former bus terminal as nearly the entire length along Ontario St is technically a "driveway". I can also imagine wanting to avoid boxing in the former bus terminal on all 4 sides between the LRT, 2 bike lanes, and a pedestrian street.

IIRC the Hasty Market plaza has been sold and/or had plans for redevelopment, so I imagine the traffic situation could quickly change.
Reply
(07-27-2022, 01:54 PM)Bytor Wrote:
(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.

Oh...I know who is developing the downtown grid, don't worry.

But Charles St. and the terminal property are owned by the Region...so I'm pretty much going to blame them for this...
Reply
(07-27-2022, 10:45 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: 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.

You've answered your own question.

Quote: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.

You would consider this not ideal, right? It's unsafe, it's ugly, it causes rider anxiety and tension to be so close to fast moving traffic. I'm sure you would agree that having a clearly defined and ideally separated right of way for bikes is preferable. I.e. the sort of thing we've done with the grid, MUTs that are often far away from traffic and so on.

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

See the above point. Riding with traffic is bad for many reasons. Now riding between train tracks with a train speeding by on each side every 10 minutes - fence or not - would be even worse than this. Who would want to bike there? I'll try to elaborate, I guess.


Primarily, my point is that we settle for extreme mediocrity in this region. We accept the bare minimum the regional and city planners offer us in terms of solutions. We don't bother them enough for serious improvements. We don't have enough people suggesting good alternatives...and I mean good, not: hey what if we put the path between the trains". There's a reason whoever said that is not an infrastructure planner.

Refer to my point https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/...#pid103689. Check out the thesis and skim the entire thing if you'd like, it's important. It explores solutions in Toronto but also shows some great examples of human centric bike infrastructure around the world. Things that have stuff like well coloured lanes (including fast/slow lanes), fully separated trails, elevated or underground trails, incredibly wayfinding, connections to important things, facilities (tools, water fountains, benches, secure bike locking etc), pulic art, lots of trees for shade and so on.

This is just one of many theses on infrastructure out there that has many great ideas that go beyond what our region does: that is - if you don't include the cycle grid - consists of bike gutters with at best floppy bollards to prevent people from driving in them. And there are so many examples in other cities out there that do it right and make cycling a nice, safe experience. You don't get that riding between train tracks or beside fast moving cars.

Anyway, I think you and many others are missing the point. It shouldn't be an issue of improving this shitty part of our bike infrastructure. There is no fixing it unless you want to ride with trains lol. Fixing it could consist of a new bridge that bypasses all of this and that way nobody will get hurt and we can have a nice looking bike bridge.
Reply
(07-27-2022, 03:39 PM)ac3r Wrote:
(07-27-2022, 10:45 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: 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.

You've answered your own question.

Quote: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.

You would consider this not ideal, right? It's unsafe, it's ugly, it causes rider anxiety and tension to be so close to fast moving traffic. I'm sure you would agree that having a clearly defined and ideally separated right of way for bikes is preferable. I.e. the sort of thing we've done with the grid, MUTs that are often far away from traffic and so on.

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

See the above point. Riding with traffic is bad for many reasons. Now riding between train tracks with a train speeding by on each side every 10 minutes - fence or not - would be even worse than this. Who would want to bike there? I'll try to elaborate, I guess.

*blinks*...what?! Would be worse than what? Surely the "this" isn't the murder lane we currently have...that would be insane to suggest.

The idea that you'd rather ride IN THE PATH OF CARS that are moving at ludicrous speed often 20-40 km/h faster than the train, than next to a train which is quiet, non-polluting, and on tracks that are physically separated from you by more distance, a fence, whatever...I ... surely you meant something else.

Quote:Primarily, my point is that we settle for extreme mediocrity in this region. We accept the bare minimum the regional and city planners offer us in terms of solutions. We don't bother them enough for serious improvements. We don't have enough people suggesting good alternatives...and I mean good, not: hey what if we put the path between the trains". There's a reason whoever said that is not an infrastructure planner.

I think this is mediocre because it is still to close to noisy polluting car traffic, the trains provide some separation from that, but not enough....

But at the end of the day, you cannot solve that overnight, calming and reducing traffic on our roads is a long process, and that is the ONLY way to make cycling on Northfield better.

Quote:Refer to my point https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/...#pid103689. Check out the thesis and skim the entire thing if you'd like, it's important. It explores solutions in Toronto but also shows some great examples of human centric bike infrastructure around the world. Things that have stuff like well coloured lanes (including fast/slow lanes), fully separated trails, elevated or underground trails, incredibly wayfinding, connections to important things, facilities (tools, water fountains, benches, secure bike locking etc), pulic art, lots of trees for shade and so on.

This is just one of many theses on infrastructure out there that has many great ideas that go beyond what our region does: that is - if you don't include the cycle grid - consists of bike gutters with at best floppy bollards to prevent people from driving in them. And there are so many examples in other cities out there that do it right and make cycling a nice, safe experience. You don't get that riding between train tracks or beside fast moving cars.

I ride beside train tracks daily...trains are very pleasant to ride near...

Quote:Anyway, I think you and many others are missing the point. It shouldn't be an issue of improving this shitty part of our bike infrastructure. There is no fixing it unless you want to ride with trains lol. Fixing it could consist of a new bridge that bypasses all of this and that way nobody will get hurt and we can have a nice looking bike bridge.

Yes...I do want to ride with trains.

"A new bridge that bypasses"...where? Creating other routes for cyclists is good, but it doesn't actually make Northfield good...some people will not be cycling where the other route goes and then you are making their trip much longer.
Reply
I think you are both talking past each other. It's both true that a MUT integrated with the LRT path could have been better than this internationally renowned death trap by slip lane, while also true that there are still a number of better solutions possible - including ones that that would not require a new bridge - to improve cycling safety at an otherwise trivial decrease in the speed and service level at the vehicular traffic entry to the on-ramps.

We should be asking for more and better options than putting cycling infra in inconvenient and less effective places like a centre lane of an LRT line or paths that traverse a bunch of unconnected area (looking at the Victoria transit hub MUT...), but no doubt it would be better than the symbolic paint we have now.
Reply
(07-27-2022, 02:20 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: I can see the argument going either way though, between the diagonal jog across Charles St, and the potentially complete lack of curbs along the former bus terminal as nearly the entire length along Ontario St is technically a "driveway". I can also imagine wanting to avoid boxing in the former bus terminal on all 4 sides between the LRT, 2 bike lanes, and a pedestrian street.

But the bus terminal “driveway” is a former driveway. Any future development would be built on the assumption that there is a bike path there. While I agree that we have to be careful to allow for the possibility of a vehicle entrance somewhere around that block, even in the absence of considering the bike path in designing that block a new build would most likely have a regular driveway, not a wide one like there is now.

And until the new build, that side would be completely uninterrupted. So I don’t really understand the objection.

For that matter, a new build could have underground parking entrances on the road side of the sidewalks, like this:

https://goo.gl/maps/3VCrRqcn7ibsefXX8

Then there is no conflict at all.
Reply


(07-27-2022, 03:39 PM)ac3r Wrote: See the above point. Riding with traffic is bad for many reasons. Now riding between train tracks with a train speeding by on each side every 10 minutes - fence or not - would be even worse than this. Who would want to bike there? I'll try to elaborate, I guess.

OK, “E” for effort. You officially get points for attempting to respond.

That being said, you’re still not making sense. Dan B. said it already, but I just have to re-iterate: Clearly, how bad it is to ride next to traffic depends on how busy that traffic is and how much separation one has from that traffic. Right?

Therefore, it is absurd to say that bicycling next to traffic is bad, and then turn around and say that riding separated from a traffic lane with one vehicle every 10 minutes, running on rails so they cannot deviate from their planned course, is somehow worse than riding with no separation with many vehicles every single minute, driven by amateurs and with no technological measures to prevent deviation. Riding between the LRT lanes is, at worst, way better than the present layout.

Additionally, in my idea there is no crossing of the bike lane by motor vehicles, whereas with the present plan there are not just crossings, but a dangerous (and dangerous-feeling) style of crossing.

You’re right that we settle for mediocrity (and worse), but even if we had the completely separate bridge (a great idea which I hope comes to fruition), some trips would make more sense to use the Northfield bridge, and they should get good infrastructure too. The only exception would be if the new bridge was so close to the existing bridge that it would be reasonable to declare the existing bridge a no-pedestrians zone, which I don’t believe is the case with the existing proposal. I don’t think you can do much better than putting that path down the middle, unusual though it is.

The only way your position makes sense is if trains are, in effect, a sort of bogeyman for you, where no matter the specifics, riding near them is horrible, worse than riding immediately next to mixed traffic in a factually dangerous situation.
Reply
(07-28-2022, 09:21 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: But the bus terminal “driveway” is a former driveway. Any future development would be built on the assumption that there is a bike path there. While I agree that we have to be careful to allow for the possibility of a vehicle entrance somewhere around that block, even in the absence of considering the bike path in designing that block a new build would most likely have a regular driveway, not a wide one like there is now.

It would probably be a (fairly?) regular one, depending on the structure of the block once it's developed. Narrower than now, but probably with more vehicles entering and exiting than the transit hub had.

With the one-way Joseph St, pedestrian Gaukel St and the LRT on Charles St, I fully expect that any driveways will be on Ontario St.
Reply
(07-28-2022, 09:55 AM)tomh009 Wrote:
(07-28-2022, 09:21 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: But the bus terminal “driveway” is a former driveway. Any future development would be built on the assumption that there is a bike path there. While I agree that we have to be careful to allow for the possibility of a vehicle entrance somewhere around that block, even in the absence of considering the bike path in designing that block a new build would most likely have a regular driveway, not a wide one like there is now.

It would probably be a (fairly?) regular one, depending on the structure of the block once it's developed. Narrower than now, but probably with more vehicles entering and exiting than the transit hub had.

With the one-way Joseph St, pedestrian Gaukel St and the LRT on Charles St, I fully expect that any driveways will be on Ontario St.

I am sure that the driveway will be on Ontario, but I disagree that it will carry more vehicles than the terminal.

Even a large apartment or office building will see less than 1000 traffic movements in a day.

The bus terminal would easily see that many buses.

Unless it is a public facility or an exceptionally large development we're going to see at most about the same number of movements. The difference will be that they will be much more concentrated at a certain time of day.
Reply
(07-28-2022, 09:30 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: That being said, you’re still not making sense.

You’re right that we settle for mediocrity (and worse)

I'm glad you managed to understand this despite me supposedly not making any sense.

Maybe it's just because I'm trained end educated a designer first and foremost, but the point I am attempting to make is that one doesn't need to settle for mediocrity. Look, if you guys are content riding your bike between moving trains (they're not a boogey man, though, I love trains/am a train foamer, I just don't think it's a nice place to bike, especially for older or younger demographics) and on streets with traffic zipping by at different speeds and even car doors opening that you can slam into, that's great. Personally, I'd rather see human centric design be implemented for our bike infrastructure. Sure you need to make sure it's all compliant with the rules, but you can still design things in a way that are pleasing to use. It is in some areas - like the former rail trails - which is great. I don't see many complaints about those regarding the infrastructure itself...at least until you have to cross a road. Then everyone hates it, which is what we ought to be solving. But those trails are a good start, though they have much room for improvement.

I'd rather we get to a point where we have our cities have bike infrastructure that is safe and pleasing to utilize (wayfinding, trees, places to have breaks, water fountains, built in calm environments so youth or old people aren't overwhelmed). And infrastructure that isn't forced to spend too much time mixing with traffic (it may be inevitable in some areas, but should be minimized as much as possible by taking different routes, building under or overpasses and so on).

As for the whole "let's cycle with the trains" thing you lot seem fixated on, I'll just try to think of some reasons off the top of my head why that would be really shitty (and yes, I know, many of these problems overlap with cars - so why would you want even more of that?):
  • Noise: trains - while ours are quiet - are still loud enough to minimize situational awareness (Even more so if you have fences on either side of you causing acoustic changes...and because a lot of riders have earphones these days or look at their mounted phones. Bad news.)
  • Cars frequently crash into the trains; most recently a cement truck pushed a train off its tracks
  • Zero areas to move to if there was an emergency be it personal or external; when in a bike gutter, you often have a sidewalk to move to. Where does one go if you're stuck between not only two fences, but active railroad tracks?
  • Re: the last point...if you fell and needed help, there is a lesser chance anyone would see you to help. What if a rider had heat stroke? A normal stroke? Cardiac arrest? Nobody would see them but maybe another cyclist
  • It would be really ugly
  • The heat island effect would make it really damn hot
  • How do you propose these would be cleared of snow?
  • Or ice?
Etc etc. See, with a bit of thought, you realize how stupid of an idea riding between train tracks is. And sure you can say "well we ride with cars" but as I keep saying, that misses the point that we should be building good infrastructure that isn't forced to mix with trains and cars. Everyone loves to see how nice things are in Netherlands and Denmark but if you've actually spent any significant amount of time there, you'd understand just how independent there bike infrastructure is...which is what I'm trying to advocate for. Building good infrastructure that can both exist independently but also be integrated into traditional infrastructure. And we don't get that by settling for mediocrity or suggesting asinine ideas like riding with trains. We need people actually willing to advocate for something better - and more so, people in the right positions to ensure such things get built.

And if we're handing out grades, I'll give you a participation award for your thoughts.

Edit: Randomly found a good video on why it's important to have pleasing infrastructure...nobody wants to wait/use a train or bus in the middle of a freeway - so why would anyone want to ride their bike between multiple lanes of traffic and two sets of train tracks?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vrQHMhZ3k4
Reply
(07-28-2022, 09:21 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(07-27-2022, 02:20 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: I can see the argument going either way though, between the diagonal jog across Charles St, and the potentially complete lack of curbs along the former bus terminal as nearly the entire length along Ontario St is technically a "driveway". I can also imagine wanting to avoid boxing in the former bus terminal on all 4 sides between the LRT, 2 bike lanes, and a pedestrian street.

But the bus terminal “driveway” is a former driveway. Any future development would be built on the assumption that there is a bike path there. While I agree that we have to be careful to allow for the possibility of a vehicle entrance somewhere around that block, even in the absence of considering the bike path in designing that block a new build would most likely have a regular driveway, not a wide one like there is now.

And until the new build, that side would be completely uninterrupted. So I don’t really understand the objection.

For that matter, a new build could have underground parking entrances on the road side of the sidewalks, like this:

https://goo.gl/maps/3VCrRqcn7ibsefXX8

Then there is no conflict at all.

It's former only in the sense that it's not actively being used, but it's still physically a driveway with curb cuts. From what I've seen, they can't or won't build bike lane curbs parallel to any existing curb cuts regardless of how actively used they are.

Not saying I wouldn't prefer the lanes on that side (I would), I just imagine this is how the city or region viewed the issue.
Reply
(07-28-2022, 10:39 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(07-28-2022, 09:55 AM)tomh009 Wrote: It would probably be a (fairly?) regular one, depending on the structure of the block once it's developed. Narrower than now, but probably with more vehicles entering and exiting than the transit hub had.

With the one-way Joseph St, pedestrian Gaukel St and the LRT on Charles St, I fully expect that any driveways will be on Ontario St.

I am sure that the driveway will be on Ontario, but I disagree that it will carry more vehicles than the terminal.

Even a large apartment or office building will see less than 1000 traffic movements in a day.

The bus terminal would easily see that many buses.

Unless it is a public facility or an exceptionally large development we're going to see at most about the same number of movements. The difference will be that they will be much more concentrated at a certain time of day.

Lets not forget that a property with the city's best pedestrian, cycling, and transit infrastructure on all 4 sides ought to be nearly car free. At the very least, significantly less traffic than the terminal saw.
Reply


(07-28-2022, 02:20 PM)ac3r Wrote:
(07-28-2022, 09:30 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: That being said, you’re still not making sense.

You’re right that we settle for mediocrity (and worse)

I'm glad you managed to understand this despite me supposedly not making any sense.

No sense re: my bike lane idea. In other areas you almost always at least make sense and often say things that I think are insightful.

Quote:[…]

I'd rather we get to a point where we have our cities have bike infrastructure that is safe and pleasing to utilize (wayfinding, trees, places to have breaks, water fountains, built in calm environments so youth or old people aren't overwhelmed). And infrastructure that isn't forced to spend too much time mixing with traffic (it may be inevitable in some areas, but should be minimized as much as possible by taking different routes, building under or overpasses and so on).

I agree with all this. The only part of what you’re saying that just has me flabbergasted is the idea that my idea is somehow worse than what we have.

Quote:As for the whole "let's cycle with the trains" thing you lot seem fixated on, I'll just try to think of some reasons off the top of my head why that would be really shitty (and yes, I know, many of these problems overlap with cars - so why would you want even more of that?):
  • Noise: trains - while ours are quiet - are still loud enough to minimize situational awareness (Even more so if you have fences on either side of you causing acoustic changes...and because a lot of riders have earphones these days or look at their mounted phones. Bad news.)

Loud enough to be louder than the motor vehicle lane that right now is immediately beside the bike lane?

Quote:
  • Cars frequently crash into the trains; most recently a cement truck pushed a train off its tracks

  • OK, so theoretically a motor vehicle could push an LRT vehicle into my centre bikelane. Unlikely, because at that point everything is travelling parallel across the bridge, but theoretically possible.

    Well, the motor vehicles which right now are next to the bike lane don’t need any help getting into the bike lane.

    Quote:
  • Zero areas to move to if there was an emergency be it personal or external; when in a bike gutter, you often have a sidewalk to move to. Where does one go if you're stuck between not only two fences, but active railroad tracks?

  • Right now one is stuck between the edge of the bridge and the vehicle lanes, a total width of approximately 3.2m sidewalk+bikelane. My proposed centre path is approximately 6m wide, or as wide as some of our narrower streets.

    Right now, if escaping to the sidewalk/bikelane (depending where you started) isn’t enough, your choices are over the edge of the bridge or directly into busy traffic. With my proposal, you’re starting with a much wider area meant for pedestrians/bicycles, and if you need to escape even from that, you hop the fence into the LRT lane, which is way safer than the general traffic lanes (not that I recommend it; but if you’re claiming that the narrow sidewalk can be a refuge from the narrow bikelane, then I can say that half of the very wide path can be a refuge from the other half).

    Quote:
  • Re: the last point...if you fell and needed help, there is a lesser chance anyone would see you to help. What if a rider had heat stroke? A normal stroke? Cardiac arrest? Nobody would see them but maybe another cyclist

  • LRT drivers; and vehicle drivers are only one lane further away. Besides, by this argument, the dedicated bridge is a non-starter: there is no other traffic to possibly see a downed rider/walker.

    Quote:
  • It would be really ugly

  • Uglier than what is there now? The entire bridge is paved, regardless. And who cares, since it would be way safer?

    Quote:
  • The heat island effect would make it really damn hot

  • Hotter than the edge of the bridge?

    Maybe.

    I’m dubious about this.

    Still, paving it with concrete is probably a good idea to help mitigate the problem.

    Quote:
  • How do you propose these would be cleared of snow?
  • Or ice?

  • Uh, the same way as every other bike path in the city?

    Seriously, it’s like you’re not even trying. This is just getting embarrassing.

    Quote: Etc etc. See, with a bit of thought, you realize how stupid of an idea riding between train tracks is. And sure you can say "well we ride with cars" but as I keep saying, that misses the point that we should be building good infrastructure that isn't forced to mix with trains and cars. Everyone loves to see how nice things are in Netherlands and Denmark but if you've actually spent any significant amount of time there, you'd understand just how independent there bike infrastructure is...which is what I'm trying to advocate for. Building good infrastructure that can both exist independently but also be integrated into traditional infrastructure. And we don't get that by settling for mediocrity or suggesting asinine ideas like riding with trains. We need people actually willing to advocate for something better - and more so, people in the right positions to ensure such things get built.

    And if we're handing out grades, I'll give you a participation award for your thoughts.

    Edit: Randomly found a good video on why it's important to have pleasing infrastructure...nobody wants to wait/use a train or bus in the middle of a freeway - so why would anyone want to ride their bike between multiple lanes of traffic and two sets of train tracks?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vrQHMhZ3k4

    Your list has 8 bullet points in it. 7 of those make me wonder if you’re trolling. The other is a potential minor downside that is hardly conclusive and certainly doesn’t merit the vehemence of your views on this matter. Maybe you just need to put a bit more thought into your points? I’m actually astonished that you could come up with so many things to write down and yet not actually hit anything with significant impact.

    The rest of what you say is right on. You just haven’t made any progress at all in explaining what is so horrible about my idea.
    Reply
    I think what's going on here is that ac3r is strongly in favour of ideal solutions. Clearly, running a bike lane in the middle of the train tracks is less ideal than having a whole segregated bike infrastructure.

    But I tend to believe in the quote of politics being the art of the possible, and I'm also in favour of incremental change, even if it's not perfect. I'd rather have a solution which is less crappy than what exists now, versus holding out for the perfect solution. (And I think that in the context of the LRT we would be looking at a zillion car lanes on King St now if we had held out for the ideal solution.)
    Reply
    « Next Oldest | Next Newest »



    Forum Jump:


    Users browsing this thread: 9 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