Waterloo Region Connected
Trails - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Trails (/showthread.php?tid=378)



RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-09-2022

I've never understood the appeal of walking on gravel, but in any case, it is perfectly possible to have a paved bike path next to an unpaved walking path.

I think any trail with sufficient volume should be paved...there really isn't any advantage to riding on gravel. IMO the latest popularity of gravel riding is an attempt to escape cars.


RE: Trails - jwilliamson - 06-09-2022

The idea that we should have a fairly shallow maximum grade for trails seems crazy to me. Sometimes there are destinations at the top and bottom of a hill that ought to be connected by trail. If you don't allow a trail going straight up the hill, then either there won't be a trail at all, the trail will follow a roundabout and confusing route, or enough land would need to be expropriated to build a switchback trail (i.e. there will be no trail).


RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 06-09-2022

(06-09-2022, 03:45 PM)jwilliamson Wrote: The idea that we should have a fairly shallow maximum grade for trails seems crazy to me. Sometimes there are destinations at the top and bottom of a hill that ought to be connected by trail. If you don't allow a trail going straight up the hill, then either there won't be a trail at all, the trail will follow a roundabout and confusing route, or enough land would need to be expropriated to build a switchback trail (i.e. there will be no trail).

That is actually a really good point. Sometimes the perfect, in the form of a requirement, is the enemy of the good.

I think my suggestion would be that there should be “normal” trails which are built to a standard and don’t need special signage, and other trails that are built in whatever way is feasible and which are signed as such so people can make an informed decision whether or not to use them.

This has to include that some trails will be built which are not accessible. It would be absurd to deny hikers access to a lookout, for example, just because it’s not feasible to build the connection to accessible standards.

On the other hand, when a real transportation route is built, we should put in significant effort to build it to the standard, just as we do when building roads for cars. And similarly, routes that actually go somewhere rather than just accessing specific points of interest should generally be useable by people of varying levels of mobility. This doesn’t mean absolutely all the time but whenever it’s even slightly feasible.


RE: Trails - plam - 06-09-2022

(06-09-2022, 06:17 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I think my suggestion would be that there should be “normal” trails which are built to a standard and don’t need special signage, and other trails that are built in whatever way is feasible and which are signed as such so people can make an informed decision whether or not to use them.

This has to include that some trails will be built which are not accessible. It would be absurd to deny hikers access to a lookout, for example, just because it’s not feasible to build the connection to accessible standards.

On the other hand, when a real transportation route is built, we should put in significant effort to build it to the standard, just as we do when building roads for cars. And similarly, routes that actually go somewhere rather than just accessing specific points of interest should generally be useable by people of varying levels of mobility. This doesn’t mean absolutely all the time but whenever it’s even slightly feasible.

There are trail classification systems in various parts of the world. Switzerland and NZ have them. Ontario was working on one, but it's not finished as far as I know.

Switzerland: https://www.bergfreunde.eu/alpine-grades-calculator/
NZ: https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/things-to-do/walking-and-tramping/track-categories/

So, yes, if you are designing a transportation route, it should meet standards for transportation. If you're designing a hiking trail, it should meet those standards. Hiking trails shouldn't be paved (though they may need switchbacks in some terrain for erosion control reasons). Transportation routes probably should be paved.

Oh, and, "no winter maintenance" signs. I'm not a great fan of those. But sure.


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-10-2022

Guys, this discussion is getting weird.

Why is it that when we talk about trails being paved and meeting a certain standard, some people think this precludes hiking trails existing?

Nobody objected to the statement saying "mountain bike trails should exist". Is it because you didn't think of mountain biking? Or because you understood that implicitly we aren't talking about mountain biking?

Hiking trails come under the same reasoning, they can exist, even when we say trails have to have a certain standard because we aren't talking about hiking.


RE: Trails - clasher - 06-10-2022

The trail to Paris is a former railway, hence the shallow grade, it wasn't designed as a trail. I think the section with the 5% grade is at The Murray Overlook where another old railway crossed there. I don't think the hump was there when it was a railway but I don't have my GRR book handy but it might have an old photo of the crossing.

There's plenty of trails in KW that are hilly. The bit of the Walter Bean trail, starting at Lancaster and going downriver to Chicopee is quite hilly in spots, I wouldn't be surprised to see 10% or more on some of the hills.

Flat trails are nice for accessibility, I wouldn't want to try and use a wheelchair or push a stroller along that stretch of trail, but I've seen both on the trail to Paris.


RE: Trails - jamincan - 06-10-2022

As someone who enjoys riding on both gravel and the road, the appeal of gravel is not just the avoidance of cars. Every time another gravel road is paved over (Streicher and Boomer are two notable ones), a part of me is happy to have another good road option with fewer cars, and a part of me is sad that good gravel riding has been pushed even further out of town.

With respect to trails, I think you have to weigh the pros and cons. Paving a trail dramatically alters the experience of it, but it can also make it more accessible. I would be really sad to see the MUTs in Columbia Wood, or the Walter Bean Trail paved over, but on the other hand, the trail heading west from Victoria Park to the Boardwalk really ought to be paved, even through Monarch Wood, which I love as it is, as it could greatly improve accessibility to the west.

(06-09-2022, 07:07 PM)plam Wrote: Oh, and, "no winter maintenance" signs. I'm not a great fan of those. But sure.

Those are often my favourite roads (on a bike)!

(I know you're talking about no winter maintenance on MUTs, which annoys me too. But it's fun to seek NWM roads out on bike rides)


RE: Trails - tomh009 - 06-10-2022

Having grown up in a country with a lot of gravel and dirt roads and trails, I really fail to understand why recreational bicycling (not for transportation) requires a paved trail. Maybe a competition road bike would have a problem with this, but 90%+ of the bikes would not. Mine has fairly narrow 30mm tires and I'm fine on most trails, except loose surfaces that really need a MTB. And, of course, such trails are fine for hiking.

I am not saying all recreational trails should be unpaved. Rather, I'm saying that I don't think that they all need to be paved.


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-10-2022

(06-10-2022, 11:52 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Having grown up in a country with a lot of gravel and dirt roads and trails, I really fail to understand why recreational bicycling (not for transportation) requires a paved trail. Maybe a competition road bike would have a problem with this, but 90%+ of the bikes would not. Mine has fairly narrow 30mm tires and I'm fine on most trails, except loose surfaces that really need a MTB. And, of course, such trails are fine for hiking.

I am not saying all recreational trails should be unpaved. Rather, I'm saying that I don't think that they all need to be paved.

Riding on gravel has far more vibrations and so is more physically exhausting and physically demanding than riding on pavement. I used to ride the Paris rail trail and it always left me very sore the day after in my shoulders and neck, in a way that riding on pavement does not. I could ride much longer on pavement.

This is to say nothing of the dust and dirt that you get on a gravel, and the lack of winter maintenance, the and fact that you cannot use the trail soon after bad weather.

And that's my experience on the Paris rail trail which is significantly smoother than gravel roads (which trade a worse surface for better drainage).

Just because it is possible to ride, does not mean it is a worse experience.


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-10-2022

(06-10-2022, 08:25 AM)jamincan Wrote: As someone who enjoys riding on both gravel and the road, the appeal of gravel is not just the avoidance of cars. Every time another gravel road is paved over (Streicher and Boomer are two notable ones), a part of me is happy to have another good road option with fewer cars, and a part of me is sad that good gravel riding has been pushed even further out of town.

With respect to trails, I think you have to weigh the pros and cons. Paving a trail dramatically alters the experience of it, but it can also make it more accessible. I would be really sad to see the MUTs in Columbia Wood, or the Walter Bean Trail paved over, but on the other hand, the trail heading west from Victoria Park to the Boardwalk really ought to be paved, even through Monarch Wood, which I love as it is, as it could greatly improve accessibility to the west.

(06-09-2022, 07:07 PM)plam Wrote: Oh, and, "no winter maintenance" signs. I'm not a great fan of those. But sure.

Those are often my favourite roads (on a bike)!

(I know you're talking about no winter maintenance on MUTs, which annoys me too. But it's fun to seek NWM roads out on bike rides)

I guess I should rephrase a bit.

I really don't understand why someone who doesn't want to go mountain biking, would want to ride on gravel. Mountain biking has it's own appeal. But riding on gravel roads, which are identical to paved roads roads in all ways but surface, are simply a worse experience than riding on the same road paved.


RE: Trails - robdrimmie - 06-10-2022

(06-10-2022, 02:42 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I really don't understand why someone who doesn't want to go mountain biking, would want to ride on gravel. Mountain biking has it's own appeal. But riding on gravel roads, which are identical to paved roads roads in all ways but surface, are simply a worse experience than riding on the same road paved.

I agree with almost everything you've said in this conversation, and especially that this trail in particular and probably most of the community trails through parks in the region would be better paved, but with this post it feels like you're approaching a point where you are arguing that your personal preference is somehow everyone's.

You not enjoying an experience does not make that experience universally unenjoyable. Yours is almost certainly the majority opinion, but for example as an autist with high vestibular input needs, the jostling I receive while riding gravel trails is actually not only enjoyable but literally therapeutic for me. I go out of my way (not super far) to add rough roads (trails, paths, etc), be they gravel or just beat-to-shit asphalt, to my regular commute.


RE: Trails - clasher - 06-10-2022

I find most of the gravel roads in the area to be fine on a road bike with 28mm tires, unless they've graded and put fresh stone down. Wider tires are nicer for sure and I go for 38 or 42mm tires if I'm doing a lot of gravel. Fenders are great if the bike can fit them. Seems a lot of gravel bikes are turning into pseudo-MTBs, with suspension forks and whatnot. I'd rather ride gravel roads than alligator-cracked pavement. Frost heave can also put some brutal cracks in the asphalt that I find worse than the buzz of gravel. The worst part of gravel is sections with a lot of potholes or washboards. I grew up riding mountain bikes all over the place so I like to ride pretty much anywhere one can get a bike without too much trouble.


RE: Trails - jamincan - 06-10-2022

(06-10-2022, 02:42 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I really don't understand why someone who doesn't want to go mountain biking, would want to ride on gravel. Mountain biking has it's own appeal. But riding on gravel roads, which are identical to paved roads roads in all ways but surface, are simply a worse experience than riding on the same road paved.

It's totally fair not to understand why gravel roads would appeal to some people, everyone has their own preferences, but rest assured that a huge number of people do enjoy it for its own merits. Take it from someone who rides road, gravel and mtb, that gravel riding is not just road riding on worse roads as you seem to believe.


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-11-2022

I mean, I'll have to take your word for it.

But I really really don't understand? You prefer gravel on a road bike to some rugged single track on an xc mountain bike?

I can see the appeal of that...at least I'm getting close to nature for my pain.


RE: Trails - jamincan - 06-11-2022

To be clear, I prefer gravel on my gravel (cx) bike, and I prefer single track on my mtb, and I prefer road on my road bike. This is diverging away from the thread, but suffice to say that they all scratch different itches. Would you ask someone who enjoys sudoku why they would ever play kakuro or chess? Also, none of my cycling is painful, unless I decide to really push myself hard. I ride my bikes because it is fun and I enjoy it. I'm not a masochist.

My point is simply that the assumption that asphalt is universally preferred to a gravel trail, especially one designed for pedestrians and cyclists, is simply not correct. Where a trail is primarily used for transportation, I think asphalt is clearly preferable for accessibility and winter maintenance, but a lot of trails are primarily recreational, and in those cases I don't think paving is always the best choice.