To Whom It May Concern:…

To Whom It May Concern:

I wish to provide my feedback, expertise, as well as strong support for the CycleON Draft Cycling Network presented for public comment.

I live in the Region of Waterloo. I strongly support the route selected through our region. It appears to largely follow the Trans-Canada Trail route through the region, and that route is nearly complete and when it is complete, most of it will be of very high quality.

I have cycled the proposed route a number of times, and I have several corrections or suggestions to make:

This summer the city of Kitchener is building a boulevard facility along Courtland Rd. from Carwood to Hayward so that section can be marked as “off road”.

However, the remainder oaf the Courtland Rd. section is on a road with no (existing or planned) bike facilities. I recommend this be marked as “proposed” not existing. Further, the city is planning a trail network along Haward, and along the railway to meet Manitou. It may be better for the proposed route to follow this routing.

Additionally, in the city of Cambridge the routes along George St. N., Park Hill Rd. W., and Grand Ave., as well as Cedar St., and Water St., are all on road segments, and should be marked that way. They are however, equipped with bike lanes and reasonable levels of traffic, thus can be considered “existing”.

In addition, I have some general feedback regarding the network.

I very much support the suggested routes. They have broad coverage of the province. They reach most regions, including those where cycle tourism is already popular. And the route makes great use of the existing cycle routes in the province. Generally, I hope that having a network like this will encourage local municipalities to connect to it with their own networks.

Having accurate mapping is important. The map provided has excellent usability, and similar data should be provided for the final form of the network. Having good mapping data provides users with confidence about the conditions they will encounter when using the network. However, more detail is required. Mapping should describe levels of quality of the actual bike infrastructure available on the network in terms of comfort. I would recommend a simple 3-level approach. Green routes which have infrastructure up to a standard I hope the province will set. Yellow routes including some infrastructure but perhaps substandard, possibly with (marked) gaps, and red routes with no infrastructure (but which are still legally accessible to bike).

The actual infrastructure provided is crucial. Cycle tourists are traveling with heavy bikes, sometimes in groups perhaps with family members, or other possibly less confident cyclists. Further, they are essentially on vacation. It is important first and foremost, for them to feel safe, but also for them to feel comfortable. Pleasant routes should be preferred even if slightly longer (30-40% max extra distance).

But beyond the routes chosen, roads must have the appropriate infrastructure. A 0.5-1 meter wide shoulder might be sufficient for a medium to low traffic rural road, but it is insufficient for a busier highway. The provincial Book 18 lays out some standards for cycleways, but I would argue they are generally insufficient, and routes should seek to exceed those standards.

Further, standards must be met or exceeded along the entire route. Frequently, bike infrastructure disappears at bridges, intersections, and constrained areas. These are the most important areas to protect cyclists, because these areas are the ones where they are at the most risk. These sections can end up being a barrier to cycle touring, if not fixed. When I traveled in the Netherlands, I found several cases where rural roads with low to medium traffic had a lane of a bridge closed, to make room for a cycling facility, and the remaining lane controlled with a signal to allow two way traffic to use the signal lane. This is the type of accommodation that’s necessary to ensure continuous safe facilities. Cities should seek to install protected intersections as well.

Finally, standards for off-road trails should be established. While paving is preferred, it may not be cost practical for all routes. However, a minimum of well drained crushed gravel should be required. It must be passable by a rider on a road bike, and should not be impassable at any time due to flooding. These minimum standards are what will give users of the network confidence that they will be able to make their journey comfortably and safely. And again, if parts of the route do not meet these standards initially, that is fine, but the map must mark them so.

This website: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com extensively documents bike infrastructure in the Netherlands, which is of an extremely high quality. It shows designs for shared roads, segregated paths, protected intersections, and much more. It is a great example of the type of infrastructure which helps people feel safe and comfortable while cycle touring.

I would argue these standards are not unreasonable, and are generally assumed by automobile drivers. Long term funding should be setup to make improvements, but funding available should be contingent on the work meeting these standards.

The final set of standards that should be set are on maintenance and detours. Work on a route is inevitable, and must be accommodated. However, alternate routes of reasonable length and equal quality must be provided. It is unacceptable for people to end up stranded because a section of the route is closed. And stranded does include being forced to ride on a busy road without sufficient cycling provisions.

And maintenance standards should also be set. For crushed gravel trails, regular grooming is required to maintain the quality. Other sections may require sweeping after winter or construction, repainting of lines, filling potholes, and other maintenance. Municipalities should be required to have a plan to complete and fund this work in order to receive funding and designation of their routes in the network.

Finally, a database of Nike friendly businesses can be included. This can include lodging, restaurants, shopping, repair and rental. Anything near the network (and safely accessible) that can help support a cycle tour. This is where the economic advantage can come about. It is also important to planning a trip as it is important to be able to find provisions, camping, or other lodging that is both bike accessible (a particular issue for lodging which needs overnight secure bike storage) and nearby.

I again wish to reiterate my strong support for this network. I have cycle toured in Quebec, and while much of the infrastructure was very good, there were enough gaps to make it uncomfortable and leave me worried about whether I would be able to make my trip. In the Netherlands, I was able to travel freely anywhere in the country by bike with full confidence that the infrastructure would be safe and complete.

If such a network existed in Ontario, I would absolutely make use of it, it would be very enjoyable to travel across our province, and all that money I spend in the Netherlands, would go into our local economy. And so many others would join me as well. Economically, this is a smart move.

Thanks very much for your efforts.

[Original Comment ID: 209429]