Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKCTAC Minutes - 2019-09-10 KITCHENER CYCLING AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES September 10, 2019 The Kitchener Cycling and Trails Advisory Committee met on Tuesday September 10, 2019, at 4:00 pm in the Conestoga Room. Present: Mr. D. Brotherston, Mr. M. Clark, Ms. V. Hand, Ms., Mr. W. Waganka, Mr. D. Hoshowksy, Mr. T. Hannah, Mr. G. Piccini, Mr. M. Rodrigues, Mr. B. Forwell, Ms. S. Powell Staff: Mr. D. Kropf, Active Transportation Planning Project Manager Ms. L. Chominiec, Active Transportation Planning Project Manager Ms. L. Christensen, Trails and Pathways Project Manager Mr. B. Cronkite, Director Transportation Services Mr. N. Lobley, Director Parks and Cemeteries 1) Wayfinding  N. Lobley introduced himself and shared that proper signage, branding, wayfinding and management of public spaces is a high priority and a personal passion. Currently the city’s sign post is the most recognizable form of branding but it needs to be more consistent, expanded with more information, be accessible, build on existing, recognize existing neighbouring municipalities and be sustainable to implement and manage. Several options for wayfinding, entrances, maps, posts, and icons were presented to the committee.  D. Brotherston acknowledged we’ve been waiting for this for a long time and is encouraged by it and wants to see it move forward. Inquired if stop signs can be switched to yield signs. Staff responded that can be considered where appropriate.  S. Powell asked where Schlegel Park is. N. Lobley responded that it is still being built.  D. Hoshowksy asked if signs can instruct people when trails are broken up by on-road segments. N. Lobley responded that the intention is to address that concern.  W. Waganka shared that reducing carbon footprint is a major priority for cycling and trails and wondered if wood-based materials can be prioritized. N. Lobley responded that some materials are recyclable and that can be shared with the sign shop.  W. Waganka shared that Waterloo has some wayfinding on the pavement itself to complement upright signage. He prefers distance over time and suggests mileage markers.  B. Forwell asked what Waterloo’s and Cambridge’s standard for colours is. Waterloo is blue and staff will investigate what Cambridge uses.  G. Piccini prefers the time. N. Lobley asked for hands on preference. Most liked distance over time.  The committee discussed time versus distance on the signs. Time can help share how long it make take for those who aren’t active walkers or cyclists and may be interested in trying it. Variation among average pedestrian speed isn’t huge but can vary a lot for cycling. Could consider time for pedestrians and distance for cycling. More discussion will be had on this item. 2) Boulevard multi-use trails standards  D.Kropf gave an overview of the BMUT’s marking standards for Region of Waterloo, Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo. These would be applied to all BMUT’s in the City as well as high KITCHENER CYCLING AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES September 10, 2019 priority trails like the Iron Horse Trail. Not intending to apply these to other off-road trails but can be addressed in the CTMP.  V. Hand asked the City not to use “slippy” white paint like the pedestrian crossing in Waterloo at the R&T park. V.Hand fell on this when it wasn’t even wet. D.Kropf responded that we haven’t decided on the type of paint yet and acknowledged that implementing these standards will be a fairly high capital cost. We want to do it properly but also need to make sure that we can maintain it.  W.Waganka asked to describe yield lanes. D.Kropf responded that this only applies to trails and not bike lanes. An appropriate place for a yield sign would be where two trails intersect.  G.Piccini asked how the shared trail signs jive with N.Lobley’s wayfinding. D. Kropf responded that the shared trail sign does not need to be a standalone sign, and can be from the panel of symbols that N.Lobley presented. The sign is from the OTM book as a shared pathway.  G.Piccini asked what is the expectation of the driver to make them stop at trails? D.Kropf responded that the signs are just notifying the driver of the crossing, not required to stop. G.Piccini shared that it’s like a ‘watch for deer’ sign. D.Kropf commented that this sign would be the bare minimum.  D. Brotherston expressed his support. Commented that the crossing sign is confusing because drivers don’t know what it means. Also commented that on King St. in Waterloo it is very confusing because there is a 30+ year old 1.5m concrete sidewalk that now has shared trail signs and cross rides.  D. Brotherston asked that the width of the trail be measured from the edgelines and not the constructed portion because it is taking the width away from the trail. Also important to show that the trail is continuous across driveways and not have curbs.  B.Forwell asked if there is a MUT fronting a condo does the private owner have any say on what gets painted etc. B.Cronkite responded that if it’s in the right of way they do not.  D. Hoshowsky commented on how unsafe it feels crossing a private driveway, like the ones on Strasburg. Although there is elephant’s feet, it is still terrifying and very confusing on who has the right of way. D. Hoshowsky added that elephants feet markings aren’t enough to warn people  D.Kropf added that all new BMUTS will have these standards. Costing still needs to be done as well as identifying the highest priority BMUT’s. D.Kropf also noted that once BMUT’s are constructed and completed on Regional roads, they get transferred to the City to maintain. 3) Complete Streets  D.Kropf shared that Complete Streets has been to the committee 3 times now. It’s a key strategic item, a response to council’s concern of road safety for all users, and is also becoming a best practice in Canada. D.Kropf gave a brief overview of what complete streets are and the guide. Complete Streets is not a formal policy, but a guideline. The expectation is to incorporate this into the development manual and strive for complete streets in reconstructions. The takeways of complete streets: narrower drive lanes from 3m-3.3m (currently 3.3m-3.7m), wider sidewalks (min. 1.8m), wider boulevards, reduced corner radii (6.0-8.0m), upgraded bicycle standards with an emphasis on all ages and abilities. D.Kropf encouraged everyone to fill out the survey at engagewr.ca/complete-streets KITCHENER CYCLING AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES September 10, 2019  D. Brotherston shared his concern that there are a number of roads that would be considered “complete” but are terrible, and asked if the manual suggests anywhere that some roads (such as 7 lanes) isn’t complete. D.Kropf responded that the scorecard considers the length of crossing the road and other features as well. D.Kropf assured the group that there is more to a complete street for pedestrians than just a sidewalk.  B. Forwell asked what the other cities and ROW are doing and what does the transition look like when you cross the boundary. D.Kropf responded that we have no jurisdiction over their roads, but try to coordinate whenever we can.  M.Rodrigues asked if it is too late to apply the complete streets to the River Rd extension as it is critical for that corridor. Also commented that this guide should be reflected in the CTMP for the multi-modal corridor.  M.Rodrigues commented that there is too much ambiguity in the CTMP’s ‘multi-modal corridor’ designation and would rather have it called a ‘constrained corridor’. M.Rodrigues requested that the CTMP be very concrete and wants to see a typology chosen for streets rather than vague statements that can be interpreted by Council later when it comes to implementation.  B.Cronkite responded that we need to be reflective of the regional master plan as well and that perhaps we can label streets such as Duke St as a constrained corridor under regional authority that is important for the overall connectivity of the network.  W.Waganka noted that nothing in complete streets mentions bike parking. Bikes are being parked everywhere (especially the bikeshare). D.Kropf responded that there is a brief section for bike parking.  M.Clark asked for clarification on how you identify something as a preferred vs an alternative, and that shouldn’t the default be to put in as many bike lanes as possible? D.Kropf responded that the preferred should be chosen unless a facility is identified in the CTMP. We would need to look at the cost-benefit for painting bike lanes everywhere. Some streets that are minor collectors and low volume function well without a facility, and the preference would be to spend the money somewhere where there is more benefit. st  D.Kropf mentioned that the report is going to Council October 21.  B.Forwell asked if there is a threshold to when a painted bike lane is not enough based on speeds? D.Kropf responded that there are industry guidelines on what facility is appropriate with certain speeds.  D.Brotherston asked if the city has any rural cross section roads and if the city would build them again? B.Cronkite responded that rural cross sections exist around older neighbourhoods like Conestoga College, Lower Doon etc. and that the expectation would be to upgrade them.  M.Rodrigues proposed a motion: o That the committee support the Complete Streets guidelines that were presented here today. o Moved by W.Waganka, seconded by D. Brotherston 4) Active transportation forum  L. Chominiec explained the purpose of the forum is to bring together different audiences to get feedback on potential campaigns and initiatives. Key themes include engaging with new Canadians, supporting students in Grade 7/8 and foster buy-in from people who oppose active transportation projects. KITCHENER CYCLING AND TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES September 10, 2019  V. Hand, W. Waganka and B. Forwell are planning to attend on KCTAC.  Deadline to register extended to Sept 16. 5) Subcommittee updates  Community outreach/event committee is planning a community ride this Friday evening. 6 pm start at Belmont and Union. About a 30 minute ride. Invite anyone. Light refreshments provided. Hoping to do more of these in the future.  Advocacy subcommittee delegated on the Young Street bike lanes last month. They want to keep doing this moving forward to provide support of projects. The committee discussed the decision made at City Council and discussed how advocacy can be better coordinated at these decisions in the future. Attendance at meetings and emails to councilors are valuable. Open dialogue with Councilors has made a big difference in the past and continues to be important.  Education committee did some engagement at Rockway Community Centre. Received a lot of positive feedback but sparsely attended. Planning to do this again at some community centres in the future.  CycleWR is hosting its first social on Thursday, 7pm at Graffiti Market. 6) Housekeeping items  There is $65 for volunteer appreciation. The group liked the idea of going to a restaurant and having appetizers to share.  Vacancies cannot be filled until 3 people have resigned. S. Marsh will look into this further. The meeting concluded at 6:05 pm.