Share Forwell Creek Road Multi-use Path on FacebookShare Forwell Creek Road Multi-use Path on TwitterShare Forwell Creek Road Multi-use Path on LinkedinEmail Forwell Creek Road Multi-use Path link
Welcome to the project page for the Forwell Creek Road multi-use path. Details regarding the current status of this project are available in the News Feed section of this page and will be updated as the project progresses. If interested, please take the time to view the preliminary designs and project information and provide feedback in our Comments section.
The City of Waterloo is currently working with WalterFedy on the design for a separated cycling lane for the Forwell Creek Road Multi-use path. The need to construct a separated cycling facility on Forwell Creek Road was identified through the City’s Transportation Master Plan 2020 Update that was completed in 2020. Based on the existing site conditions and identified constraints, a multi-use path (MUP) has been selected as the separated cycling facility on this street.
The limits of this planned MUP work extend from the existing Forwell Creek trail, approximately 275m southwest to the Weber Street North intersection. The design of the facility will need to tie into the recently constructed separated cycling infrastructure on Weber Street North which has a uni-directional cycle track on the east side and MUP on the west side.
The proposed MUP will require the removal of the existing sidewalk in order to make room for the new 3.0m wide path. Some minor curb adjustments will need to be made along with regrading and sodding of the boulevard space. An uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is being proposed around the midway point of Forwell Creek, just west of the Canadian Tire entrance.
Welcome to the project page for the Forwell Creek Road multi-use path. Details regarding the current status of this project are available in the News Feed section of this page and will be updated as the project progresses. If interested, please take the time to view the preliminary designs and project information and provide feedback in our Comments section.
The City of Waterloo is currently working with WalterFedy on the design for a separated cycling lane for the Forwell Creek Road Multi-use path. The need to construct a separated cycling facility on Forwell Creek Road was identified through the City’s Transportation Master Plan 2020 Update that was completed in 2020. Based on the existing site conditions and identified constraints, a multi-use path (MUP) has been selected as the separated cycling facility on this street.
The limits of this planned MUP work extend from the existing Forwell Creek trail, approximately 275m southwest to the Weber Street North intersection. The design of the facility will need to tie into the recently constructed separated cycling infrastructure on Weber Street North which has a uni-directional cycle track on the east side and MUP on the west side.
The proposed MUP will require the removal of the existing sidewalk in order to make room for the new 3.0m wide path. Some minor curb adjustments will need to be made along with regrading and sodding of the boulevard space. An uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is being proposed around the midway point of Forwell Creek, just west of the Canadian Tire entrance.
Please share any additional comments you may have with our project team.
Your username and comments will be published on this site for public viewing. Please note, if you choose to identify yourself with your first and last name in the username field, your name will be available for public viewing. For more information, please refer to our privacy policy.
You need to be signed in to comment in this Guest Book. Click here to Sign In or Register to get involved
Separated cycling facilities on Davenport are very welcome for me as riding on the road next to cars is frightening and dangerous. However, many MUPs in the city next to busy roads (e.g. Victoria, Lackner, Albert) have a severe safety flaw: they offer no protection from motorists at driveways and intersections. Motorists often make turns across MUPs at high speed without checking if it is clear to do so. It is also very common to see drivers exiting a driveway and blocking a MUP while they wait for an opening in which to turn. Raised crossings (on both sides) could address these issues. Adding bump outs or even a couple plastic bollards in the old on-street bike lanes at driveways would help slow turning cars and increase awareness of vulnerable path users.
Matthew Regehr
about 2 months ago
I think a MUP is a good idea here, as it would help connect the Forwell Trail to the many destinations near this intersection.
However, overall connectivity still needs a lot of work. The current state of most of Weber is unsafe and pleasant, especially for those not in a vehicle. I do like the addition of the MUP north of King though.
ScottClark
3 months ago
I am an avid and active cyclist who uses a bicycle for my primary mode of transportation. I use the Forwell Creek Trail regularly as I live at University and Bridge and so this trail allows convenient and SAFE access to Canadian Tire, No Frills and the Weber and King area.
I have mixed feelings about shared/multi use (SUP/MUP) paths. I sincerely appreciate that I am not obliged to "share" a lane with motorists, although cyclists "share" the road like lambs "share" lion cages. In spite of this, in many instances I will seek an alternate route rather than use the SUP/MUT. There are several reasons for this.
First, if there is a known probability that I will encounter a significant number of pedestrians then the SUP/MUP can become inefficient enough as to make the road more expedient.
Second, the idea that I am given a piece of infrastructure that increases my personal safety while at the same time endangering the safety of another vulnerable population is ludicrous.
Third, and most significantly, is the reality that my safety is probably LOWER on the SUP/MUP than it would be on the road. This is because motorists do NOT recognise the SUP/MUP as a place that they should come to a complete stop and look BOTH ways for cyclists before crossing, requiring me to treat all places where the SUP/MUP crosses motorized vehicle infrastructure as a potential collision point. It is FAR safer for me to be on the road, where motorists are actually looking because they do not want to collide with another motorized vehicle, than it is for me to be on the SUP/MUP, where they are not looking at all and not stopping.
Fortunately there is a simple solution to this last problem: A bump. Raise the level of the infrastructure used by vulnerable users such that it affects the comfort of the motorist when they cross it. People, regardless of whether they are on foot, on a bicycle, or driving a tank, respond to infrastructure. Put a bump and a STOP sign where the motorized vehicles cross paths with vulnerable members of our population, making it clear that the infrastructure for those users is primary and is prioritized and that the lane for motorized users infrastructure is the one doing the "crossing" rather than the one "being crossed", and then I will be able to use the SUP/MUP as it is intended. Everyone will be happier. I will not be on the road, making the average motorist happier, and the average cyclist happier, and SAFER.
However, the reduction in safety for the average pedestrian still makes the SUP/MUP solution less than ideal. It simply means that the pedestrian assumes the risk that the cyclist has been redeemed of. This transferring of the risk from one party to another is no solution at all. The correct solution is the one that we see along King Street in Waterloo between Central Avenue and University Avenue: Separate, segregated lanes. One for pedestrians, one for active transportation - read "anything with wheels" not currently classified as a "motorized vehicle" - and one for "motorized vehicles". This is the correct solution. The only thing that would make this solution perfect is raising the active transportation pathways "above" the motorized lanes, causing motorists to slow down so they are "comfortable" crossing the bump. Until there is a "physical" cost, motorists will simply not change. it's basic human nature.
Thank you for reading, and best of luck.
Peace!
Papadagio
3 months ago
Will part of this plan include decommissioning the existing road-level bike lanes? If yes, can this plan also look at resorting Davenport to a 4-lane road? or at the very least, put in a center passing lane / extend turning lanes to avoid traffic jams. It is a major artery road and as Waterloo's residential density increases, the road network is a lifeline. Just like internal arteries, which doctors discourage restricting them as it can lead to heart attacks, it is important to maintain easy flow of people as the city becomes more dense.
Exiting Kings Court is also really hazardous in the winter. The road is never salted/sanded enough and the snow banks reduce visibility. Consider a round about or traffic lights to improve intersection safety and pedestrian crossing.
HasAlreadyBeenTaken
3 months ago
Bikes and pedestrians should not share the same lane. I have lived in this area for 20 years. The majority of people riding bikes come up behind pedestrians with no warning and speed past within inches - no bell ringing, no calls of "bike". If the pedestrian were to step to the side or gesture with an arm, they would be hit full force resulting in a fall and possibly broken bones. There are a lot of seniors in the Atriums building.
While I'm here, another comment. The bike lanes installed on Erb Street are a major nuisance. The elimination of the right-hand lane crossing King St. on Bridgeport is also a hazard.
Separated cycling facilities on Davenport are very welcome for me as riding on the road next to cars is frightening and dangerous. However, many MUPs in the city next to busy roads (e.g. Victoria, Lackner, Albert) have a severe safety flaw: they offer no protection from motorists at driveways and intersections. Motorists often make turns across MUPs at high speed without checking if it is clear to do so. It is also very common to see drivers exiting a driveway and blocking a MUP while they wait for an opening in which to turn. Raised crossings (on both sides) could address these issues. Adding bump outs or even a couple plastic bollards in the old on-street bike lanes at driveways would help slow turning cars and increase awareness of vulnerable path users.
I think a MUP is a good idea here, as it would help connect the Forwell Trail to the many destinations near this intersection.
However, overall connectivity still needs a lot of work. The current state of most of Weber is unsafe and pleasant, especially for those not in a vehicle. I do like the addition of the MUP north of King though.
I am an avid and active cyclist who uses a bicycle for my primary mode of transportation. I use the Forwell Creek Trail regularly as I live at University and Bridge and so this trail allows convenient and SAFE access to Canadian Tire, No Frills and the Weber and King area.
I have mixed feelings about shared/multi use (SUP/MUP) paths. I sincerely appreciate that I am not obliged to "share" a lane with motorists, although cyclists "share" the road like lambs "share" lion cages. In spite of this, in many instances I will seek an alternate route rather than use the SUP/MUT. There are several reasons for this.
First, if there is a known probability that I will encounter a significant number of pedestrians then the SUP/MUP can become inefficient enough as to make the road more expedient.
Second, the idea that I am given a piece of infrastructure that increases my personal safety while at the same time endangering the safety of another vulnerable population is ludicrous.
Third, and most significantly, is the reality that my safety is probably LOWER on the SUP/MUP than it would be on the road. This is because motorists do NOT recognise the SUP/MUP as a place that they should come to a complete stop and look BOTH ways for cyclists before crossing, requiring me to treat all places where the SUP/MUP crosses motorized vehicle infrastructure as a potential collision point. It is FAR safer for me to be on the road, where motorists are actually looking because they do not want to collide with another motorized vehicle, than it is for me to be on the SUP/MUP, where they are not looking at all and not stopping.
Fortunately there is a simple solution to this last problem: A bump. Raise the level of the infrastructure used by vulnerable users such that it affects the comfort of the motorist when they cross it. People, regardless of whether they are on foot, on a bicycle, or driving a tank, respond to infrastructure. Put a bump and a STOP sign where the motorized vehicles cross paths with vulnerable members of our population, making it clear that the infrastructure for those users is primary and is prioritized and that the lane for motorized users infrastructure is the one doing the "crossing" rather than the one "being crossed", and then I will be able to use the SUP/MUP as it is intended. Everyone will be happier. I will not be on the road, making the average motorist happier, and the average cyclist happier, and SAFER.
However, the reduction in safety for the average pedestrian still makes the SUP/MUP solution less than ideal. It simply means that the pedestrian assumes the risk that the cyclist has been redeemed of. This transferring of the risk from one party to another is no solution at all. The correct solution is the one that we see along King Street in Waterloo between Central Avenue and University Avenue: Separate, segregated lanes. One for pedestrians, one for active transportation - read "anything with wheels" not currently classified as a "motorized vehicle" - and one for "motorized vehicles". This is the correct solution. The only thing that would make this solution perfect is raising the active transportation pathways "above" the motorized lanes, causing motorists to slow down so they are "comfortable" crossing the bump. Until there is a "physical" cost, motorists will simply not change. it's basic human nature.
Thank you for reading, and best of luck.
Peace!
Will part of this plan include decommissioning the existing road-level bike lanes? If yes, can this plan also look at resorting Davenport to a 4-lane road? or at the very least, put in a center passing lane / extend turning lanes to avoid traffic jams. It is a major artery road and as Waterloo's residential density increases, the road network is a lifeline. Just like internal arteries, which doctors discourage restricting them as it can lead to heart attacks, it is important to maintain easy flow of people as the city becomes more dense.
Exiting Kings Court is also really hazardous in the winter. The road is never salted/sanded enough and the snow banks reduce visibility. Consider a round about or traffic lights to improve intersection safety and pedestrian crossing.
Bikes and pedestrians should not share the same lane. I have lived in this area for 20 years. The majority of people riding bikes come up behind pedestrians with no warning and speed past within inches - no bell ringing, no calls of "bike". If the pedestrian were to step to the side or gesture with an arm, they would be hit full force resulting in a fall and possibly broken bones. There are a lot of seniors in the Atriums building.
While I'm here, another comment. The bike lanes installed on Erb Street are a major nuisance. The elimination of the right-hand lane crossing King St. on Bridgeport is also a hazard.