Looking at the Union proposal.

Stuff like this always drives me nuts.

They are proposing a property taking in order to extend a left turn storage lane by a handful of meters. What an incredible waste of money, time, and effort.

@citywaterloo @TenilleUptown @jeffhenrykw

Other comments on this project follow (2/n)....

Every proposal includes this right turn lane...drop it...I'm sure it's unnecessary and it makes this intersection excessively and unnecessarily wide.

While we're at it, tighten up the excessively wide turn radii that encourage dangerous speeds.

I realize it is a Kitchener guide, the complete streets guide provides good guidance on this...wide turning radii = high speeds + long crossing distances = dangerous roads.

https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/DSD-19-235-Complete-Streets-Guidelines-Kitchener.pdf

The turning radii issue applies at most intersections, here's a good example, it's even wider than the current design (which is functioning fine), even worse, I'm certain the engineers did not consider the effective turn radii, which should be measured from the edge of the bike..

...lane instead of the curb itself...while we're at it, lets tighten up the bike lane...no need for it to end so far back from this quiet residential side street.

I'm glad narrower lanes are being proposed, 3.25m is the minimum AFAIK which we should be implementing, but the 0.25 m buffer is unnecessary...

I make this comment Every. Single. Time. (except for University Ave. where the region is somehow proposing the correct design, which really was a surprise).

This is incorrect curb profile for a protected bike lane. There must be a barrier curb between the bike lane and car lane.

There is no reason to facilitate cars encroaching the cycle lane, while also making it impossible for cyclists to escape to safey away from cars.

Put the barrier curb between the car lane and bike lane, and put no curb on the other side of the bike lane.

4 meter through lane with 1.5 meters sidewalks...

We need 1.8 meter sidewalks, and there is absolutely room here to do it, why are they not proposed!?

This is actually a more general objection to this project...the engineers are pitting cyclists against peds, by suggesting that we can have good cycling or a better pedestrian realm.

There is enough space to have standard width sidewalks (required to be 1.8 meter for AODA...

compliance), AND cycle infra. Proposing one or the other feels like an attempt to play cyclists and peds against each other without considering the 1000 pound gorillas running up and down the middle of the room. Cut the unnecessary curbs and widen the sidewalks to standard width.

I'm glad union street is being improved, and this looks overall, like a big improvement over the truly awful status quo...but this is an urban residential street making important connections across the city for all users, it deserves the best design for cyclists AND peds....

...by the way, it would be much clearer to residents why the cycle infra is important, if the connections to the East (4 lane -> 3 lane + bike lanes connecting to the existing lanes at Margaret and through to Lancaster) was mentioned...

There doesn't exist another parallel route

(Please feel free to DM me for an offline discussion of any of these issues.)

Why do I have to be an occasional or recreational rider in order to be uncomfortable riding in traffic?