Cycling in Waterloo Region

[clasher]

Google makes some weird choices for its cycling directions, I'm glad to hear someone is trying to make something better.

[KevinT]

Google makes some weird choices for its cycling directions, I'm glad to hear someone is trying to make something better.

Boy howdy. For at least the past year it refuses to believe that the bike lanes on Manitou can get you past the Bleams Rd round-about. The sidewalk becomes an MUT skirting it which the bike lanes ramp right on to, but Google is having none of it no matter how you drag and drop the suggested route.

Edit to add: That limitation I know about so it's no big deal, but how many other compromises does it throw into my routes of which I'm completely unaware?

[cherrypark]

Great news about the efforts for building out the app. Not to negate their efforts, but really wish Transit App would take this as a next priority area to apply their UI and intermodal connections towards.

[danbrotherston]

Great news about the efforts for building out the app. Not to negate their efforts, but really wish Transit App would take this as a next priority area to apply their UI and intermodal connections towards.

I hear that this is actually up to GRT, who would need to pay the app's creators to make the app work better here (along with a branded version I assume).

But I completely agree, Calgary's app was very good for this reason.

[ac3r]

Kitchener’s Duke Street could be transformed to discourage cars, favour transit and cyclists: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...lists.html

EngageWR link: https://www.engagewr.ca/hub-page/regionofwaterloo

[jeffster]

Kitchener’s Duke Street could be transformed to discourage cars, favour transit and cyclists: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...lists.html

EngageWR link: https://www.engagewr.ca/hub-page/regionofwaterloo

Good idea, this is a redundant road at this point. Or close it off entirely between Frederick and College -- to make a pedestrian plaza -- if possible. D&O garage would be the biggest challenge.

[danbrotherston]

Kitchener’s Duke Street could be transformed to discourage cars, favour transit and cyclists: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...lists.html

EngageWR link: https://www.engagewr.ca/hub-page/regionofwaterloo

Good idea, this is a redundant road at this point. Or close it off entirely between Frederick and College -- to make a pedestrian plaza -- if possible. D&O garage would be the biggest challenge.

I had a much more negative take on it:

...

It's mediocre, and typical. It shows again that the region refuses to prioritize cycling under any circumstances.

Leaving aside the fact that without millions of dollars of enforcement, most drivers will ignore the no through signs, which is exactly what we see happening in Toronto.

They are "considering" 40! You can't make this up, it's insanely bad.  I'm not having my child share the road with the over 500 buses that will use this corridor.

It's also a lie. If they wanted to, they could run buses up the LRT right of way, and use one lane for buses in the other direction, and one lane for bikes. But they won't. Because running buses and LRT together might slow down transit. Because running with bikes won't slow down transit? Why not? Because as usual they aren't planning to have bikes there.

The ONLY good thing about this plan is it should be easy to fix because it's not infrastructure.

This is also coming from the same minds who insisted they could not possibly put in protected bike lanes on University Ave because it was impossible to transition from protected bike lanes to painted bike lanes. Somehow that transition isn't a problem coming from a two way protected bike lane on one side of the road to no infra.

The city should not endorse it, they should stand up for something for once instead of compromising it. They should fucking call the region out as the obstacle to the city they are.

The bike network is ON Duke because it was the ONLY corridor where the region would even consider protecting cyclists, and it's no surprise they are now refusing. We *COULD* have had it on Weber, there's space there, but we don't.

*sigh*...I'm glad I'm leaving guys, this is absolutely no surprise.

What I am disappointed by is the positive response to it...it's like we have such low expectations that we'll take a sign as a win. Sharrows weren't good enough...neither is this.

FWIW...I agree, I would love it to be be pedestrianized (the whole downtown really), but I think there are a significant number of driveways which need access maintained, some have other accesses, but ones like the Ontario garage don't. But I think the region is also concerned with transit, like I said, they COULD free up a lane by having buses use the LRT right of way, but they claim that's "impossible".

I'm so tired of regional engineers claiming it is "impossible" to prioritize anything but cars (and transit).

[ijmorlan]

What about just making it one way? Not as the 3-lane semi-highway it was back when we had the one way system, but a single lane? Then the other direction can become a separated 2-way cycle track.

OOPS: I just noticed this is Dan’s proposal. Anyway, I approve Dan’s message, and I’m sorry to see him leaving. We need more advocates for better transportation infrastructure.

[danbrotherston]

What about just making it one way? Not as the 3-lane semi-highway it was back when we had the one way system, but a single lane? Then the other direction can become a separated 2-way cycle track.

Making it one way would involve redirecting one direction of several frequent bus routes, which is what regional engineers don't want to do. I argue that they could solve this by using the LRT right of way for the other direction of buses, but apparently that's "impossible".

[Bytor]

What about just making it one way? Not as the 3-lane semi-highway it was back when we had the one way system, but a single lane? Then the other direction can become a separated 2-way cycle track.

Making it one way would involve redirecting one direction of several frequent bus routes, which is what regional engineers don't want to do. I argue that they could solve this by using the LRT right of way for the other direction of buses, but apparently that's "impossible".

Our system is not designed as a street car and the tram drivers are not trained as that. Further, the unreliability of busses thanks to congestion makes it difficult to run them in between trams with even a 15 minute headway and significantly more and more so as you decrease that window. You don't make the buses routes any more efficient or reliable, you just make the trams less so.

[danbrotherston]

Making it one way would involve redirecting one direction of several frequent bus routes, which is what regional engineers don't want to do. I argue that they could solve this by using the LRT right of way for the other direction of buses, but apparently that's "impossible".

Our system is not designed as a street car and the tram drivers are not trained as that. Further, the unreliability of busses thanks to congestion makes it difficult to run them in between trams with even a 15 minute headway and significantly more and more so as you decrease that window. You don't make the buses routes any more efficient or reliable, you just make the trams less so.

We're talking about a 4 block segment, the delay and congestion would be minimal, and tram drivers can be trained to not run into buses that happen to be parallel to their route rather than perpendicular. The LRT is running by driver operation on this segment, not using ATP or whatever train control system they have in place, so the LRT can follow a bus.

None of these objections are remotely impossible or even difficult to overcome, meaning it is a choice not to prioritize cycling. If the region actually felt that cycling was important, they could make this work, but since they don't, they aren't going to do so.

And I'll point out again, if cycling WAS successful, it would mean significant delays for the buses, but because the region doesn't believe cycling will be successful they don't care, and more, because of their choice to refuse to invest in cycling, they will probably ensure cycling doesn't ever see significantly more traffic.

[ijmorlan]

Making it one way would involve redirecting one direction of several frequent bus routes, which is what regional engineers don't want to do. I argue that they could solve this by using the LRT right of way for the other direction of buses, but apparently that's "impossible".

Our system is not designed as a street car and the tram drivers are not trained as that. Further, the unreliability of busses thanks to congestion makes it difficult to run them in between trams with even a 15 minute headway and significantly more and more so as you decrease that window. You don't make the buses routes any more efficient or reliable, you just make the trams less so.

I think our tram drivers are sufficiently trained to know not to run into a bus on the right-of-way. The idea that a transit lane can’t handle more than one route or more than one vehicle every several minutes is nonsense. I would be concerned if there were a bus stop that required the bus to stop on the tracks; that would at a minimum require careful consideration and is not ideal.

[danbrotherston]

Here is a question for you folks...

How would you be responding to a proposal where our main downtown cycle grid will use shared bus/bike lanes?

Because this is exactly what is being proposed for Duke St.

It's amazing what a little framing will do.

[ijmorlan]

Here is a question for you folks...

How would you be responding to a proposal where our main downtown cycle grid will use shared bus/bike lanes?

Because this is exactly what is being proposed for Duke St.

It's amazing what a little framing will do.

It’s obviously no good for either.

Buses will get held up by bicycles, and many bicyclists will feel rushed or unsafe.

Although I think you were right when you said the actual plan is effectively just not to accommodate bicycles and keep bicycle traffic to a hardcore minority.

[danbrotherston]

Here is a question for you folks...

How would you be responding to a proposal where our main downtown cycle grid will use shared bus/bike lanes?

Because this is exactly what is being proposed for Duke St.

It's amazing what a little framing will do.

It’s obviously no good for either.

Buses will get held up by bicycles, and many bicyclists will feel rushed or unsafe.

Although I think you were right when you said the actual plan is effectively just not to accommodate bicycles and keep bicycle traffic to a hardcore minority.

Yeah, I think that's the regional plan.  I mean, whether they think its the intention, or whether they just don't believe cycling is a thing that will happen (and so create self fulfilling prophecies) I don't know. I first encountered this when I was part of the Moving Forward 2020 plan...where they said that their modeling showed that even if they built a huge protected, comprehensive, and connected network they wouldn't get significant usage....I asked them how their modeling worked and they, completely seriously explained that it's based on what uptick in cycling they get from building one disconnected, mediocre piece of infra. It was around that point, I realized that talking to staff was pointless.

But I was actually talking about the response to this. I know several cycling advocates who are positioning this as a win. I think they feel this is the best we can get, which frankly, I think is silly, we should aim higher. But I think it's also a little bit about the positioning. If this was positioned as a bus/bike lane, how much worse would it be received by the public.