Trails

[Canard]

Has anyone been along the Spur Line Trail the last few days?  Is it cleared down to the asphalt?  Passable by someone with a "regular" mountain bike with knobby tires?

Edit - Answered my own question.

[ijmorlan]

AODA New January 2017 Compliance Laws

Recreational trails and beach access routes

When an affected organization plans to build or redevelop a recreational trail, it must consult the public, including persons with disabilities regarding:

• The trail’s slope
  
• The need for and location of ramps on the trail
  
• The need for, location of and design of rest areas, passing areas, viewing areas, amenities and other pertinent features of the trail
  
• Where the obligated organization is a municipality, it must also consult with its municipal Accessibility Advisory Committee.
  
• Organizations must also follow the new requirements, including minimum width and height guidelines and maximum slope requirements.
  

I wonder if any of these changes will require us to start building better sidewalks.

I also wonder if any of these requirements would have mandated actually having a walkway from the sidewalk to the building I now work in.  A brand new building by the way...that doesn't even have a walkway.  Honestly.

No front walk? Crazy!

One question I have about these trail guidelines is actually coming from the other point of view. I’m wondering about hiking trails. Clearly, a trail like the Spur Line or many of the other trails in town must be designed to be accessible to everybody. Similarly, if we’re going to build a pedestrian bridge over the expressway or a river, it should be accessible also. But it would not be at all appropriate for accessibility concerns to prevent construction of a hiking trail that is inherently inaccessible. I’m not sure what the proper dividing line is here. Perhaps whether a significant part of the use of the trail is for transportation (in which case it should be accessible to all), or if instead the purpose of using the trail is strictly to have the experience of using the trail (in which case we simply have to accept that not everybody can make use of it).

[danbrotherston]

No front walk? Crazy!

One question I have about these trail guidelines is actually coming from the other point of view. I’m wondering about hiking trails. Clearly, a trail like the Spur Line or many of the other trails in town must be designed to be accessible to everybody. Similarly, if we’re going to build a pedestrian bridge over the expressway or a river, it should be accessible also. But it would not be at all appropriate for accessibility concerns to prevent construction of a hiking trail that is inherently inaccessible. I’m not sure what the proper dividing line is here. Perhaps whether a significant part of the use of the trail is for transportation (in which case it should be accessible to all), or if instead the purpose of using the trail is strictly to have the experience of using the trail (in which case we simply have to accept that not everybody can make use of it).

Yeah, I know. I was shocked and dismayed. I also have a coworker who is in a wheelchair and takes the bus, I've been meaning to ask him how he gets in now. I cannot imagine he can get from the bus stop to work now (less than a block walk).

As for trails, I entirely agree, there needs to be a differentiation between accessible recreational trails, inaccessible recreation trails, and transportation trails (always accessible) .

[MacBerry]

No front walk? Crazy!

One question I have about these trail guidelines is actually coming from the other point of view. I’m wondering about hiking trails. Clearly, a trail like the Spur Line or many of the other trails in town must be designed to be accessible to everybody. Similarly, if we’re going to build a pedestrian bridge over the expressway or a river, it should be accessible also. But it would not be at all appropriate for accessibility concerns to prevent construction of a hiking trail that is inherently inaccessible. I’m not sure what the proper dividing line is here. Perhaps whether a significant part of the use of the trail is for transportation (in which case it should be accessible to all), or if instead the purpose of using the trail is strictly to have the experience of using the trail (in which case we simply have to accept that not everybody can make use of it).

Yeah, I know. I was shocked and dismayed.  I also have a coworker who is in a wheelchair and takes the bus, I've been meaning to ask him how he gets in now.  I cannot imagine he can get from the bus stop to work now (less than a block walk).

As for trails, I entirely agree, there needs to be a differentiation between accessible recreational trails, inaccessible recreation trails, and transportation trails (always accessible) .

O. Reg. 191/11: INTEGRATED ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS  speaks to  both your concerns;

Recreational Trails and Beach Access Routes, General

Trails
    80.6  This Part applies to newly constructed and redeveloped recreational trails that an obligated organization intends to maintain, but does not apply to the following types of recreational trails:
      1.   Trails solely intended for cross-country skiing, mountain biking or the use of motorized snow vehicles or off-road vehicles.
      2.   Wilderness trails, back country trails and portage routes. O. Reg. 413/12, s. 6.

The technical requirements for trails (general) are outlined in Regulation part: 

80.9  (1)  Obligated organizations shall ensure that any recreational trails that they construct or redevelop, and that they intend to maintain, meet the following technical requirements:
      1.   A recreational trail must have a minimum clear width of 1,000 mm.
      2.   A recreational trail must have a clear height that provides a minimum head room clearance of 2,100 mm above the trail.
      3.   The surface of a recreational trail must be firm and stable.
      4.   Where a recreational trail has openings in its surface,
                 i.   the openings must not allow passage of an object that has a diameter of more than 20 mm, and
                ii.   any elongated openings must be orientated approximately perpendicular to the direction of travel.
      5.   Where a recreational trail is constructed adjacent to water or a drop-off, the trail must have edge protection that meets the following requirements:
                 i.   The edge protection must constitute an elevated barrier that runs along the edge of the recreational trail in order to prevent users of the trail from slipping over the edge.
                ii.   The top of the edge protection must be at least 50 mm above the trail surface.
               iii.   The edge protection must be designed so as not to impede the drainage of the trail surface.
      6.   Despite paragraph 5, where there is a protective barrier that runs along the edge of a recreational trail that is adjacent to water or a drop-off, edge protection does not have to be provided.
      7.   The entrance to a recreational trail must provide a clear opening of between 850 mm and 1,000 mm, whether the entrance includes a gate, bollard or other entrance design.
      8.   A recreational trail must have at each trail head signage that provides the following information:
                 i.   The length of the trail.
                ii.   The type of surface of which the trail is constructed.
               iii.   The average and the minimum trail width.
              iv.   The average and maximum running slope and cross slope.
               v.   The location of amenities, where provided. O. Reg. 413/12, s. 6.
    (2)  The signage referred to in paragraph 8 of subsection (1) must have text that,
    (a)   has high tonal contrast with its background in order to assist with visual recognition; and
    (b)   includes characters that use a sans serif font. O. Reg. 413/12, s. 6.
    (3)  Where other media, such as park websites or brochures, are used by the obligated organization to provide information about the recreational trail, beyond advertising, notice or promotion, the media must provide the same information as listed in paragraph 8 of subsection (1). O. Reg. 413/12, s. 6.

[Canard]

Guessing this is old news, but I was positivley thrilled to see that the lower segment of the Laurel Trail just North of Seagram is finally paved!

   

Also, very interesting signage now up on the segment of the trail that is between King and Regina in UpTown Waterloo:

   

[jamincan]

Reason prevails!

[ijmorlan]

Reason prevails!

Yes, I was worried that section would officially no longer be a trail and that they might do something stupid like pave it with triangular blocks (pointing up) to discourage use, or even more stupid, put a gate across it (which of course would have to be opened precisely whenever a train is actually going to go through). But instead we have a pretty reasonable setup. My only nit is that this would be a perfect application for flangeway fillers. I understand one can install rubber boots that actually fill the flangeway but depress when the train goes through. Since bicycles need to travel parallel to the tracks here, that would be a nice feature. Overall though, nicely done.

[plam]

Guessing this is old news, but I was positivley thrilled to see that the lower segment of the Laurel Trail just North of Seagram is finally paved!

Tell me about it. It is so much better than the gravel that was there for way too long. Definitely welcome on my daily commute.

We've written about the Waterloo Park station before. There seems to be an icy path from Waterloo Park to the station. I wonder if they plan to pave that as well. It would be nice to have some way of getting to the park without going through a parking lot, also.

[Markster]

We've written about the Waterloo Park station before. There seems to be an icy path from Waterloo Park to the station. I wonder if they plan to pave that as well. It would be nice to have some way of getting to the park without going through a parking lot, also.

That icy path is the future official path. But since the crossing of the LRT tracks is incomplete, they haven't finished it, and so are not maintaining it through the winter.

I got a look at it yesterday, and wow, is it one hell of a sheet of sloped ice.

[plam]

We've written about the Waterloo Park station before. There seems to be an icy path from Waterloo Park to the station. I wonder if they plan to pave that as well. It would be nice to have some way of getting to the park without going through a parking lot, also.

That icy path is the future official path. But since the crossing of the LRT tracks is incomplete, they haven't finished it, and so are not maintaining it through the winter.

I got a look at it yesterday, and wow, is it one hell of a sheet of sloped ice.

Yeah. Decided to not explore it on my bike. My crampons would work I'm sure.

[Pheidippides]

The IHT was closed very unexpected (to me anyway) between Park and Caroline. I couldn't tell if it was Ion related or 144 related:
   
   

By the end of the day there was a huge pit in the sidewalk area of the SW corner of Caroline and Allen.

[danbrotherston]

The IHT was closed very unexpected (to me anyway) between Park and Caroline. I couldn't tell if it was Ion related or 144 related:



By the end of the day there was a huge pit in the sidewalk area of the SW corner of Caroline and Allen.

I also saw this.  No warning, no detour, this would be unacceptable for roads.  Councillors would have drivers pounding down their doors.  But apparently trails aren't considered important.

I'd even give them credit for doing this in summer, but in winter, this is unacceptable as there are effectively no bike lanes on Park when the snow falls (hell, there's barely sidewalks).  This effectively blocks my route to work.  And when the snow returns as it inevitably will, I refuse to ride on Caroline.  This is unacceptable to me.

[GtwoK]

To play devil's advocate here... Really? I mean, the trail just cuts across a single block. The detour would be to just follow the sidewalk a couple meters to the right, wouldn't it? Am. I missing something? If they blocked off the trail heading through the the woods, or Victoria Park, or somewhere where the detour was not immediately obvious, I'd understand, but detouring around this just requires a slight turn to your right and is immediately obvious, and only adds maybe 20 seconds to your journey.

[ijmorlan]

To play devil's advocate here... Really? I mean, the trail just cuts across a single block. The detour would be to just follow the sidewalk a couple  meters to the right, wouldn't it? Am. I missing something? If they blocked off the trail heading through the the woods, or Victoria Park, or somewhere where the detour was not immediately obvious, I'd understand, but detouring around this just requires a slight turn to your right and is immediately obvious, and only adds maybe 20 seconds to your journey.

The point is that we have another example of the double standard. If it were a road, there would have been signs for a week or two ahead of time advertising the closure, and there would have been an (admittedly poorly) signed official detour route.

I also can’t help but mention that this whole trail section is planned to be permanently closed and replaced with an inferior route, also due to a double standard as to trails vs. roads.

[Pheidippides]

And the detour from the trail to Allen is partially blocked by a pile of snow on the sidewalk and the construction fence being too close to a telephone pole. I had to detour with my son son in our jogger on to the road because we could not get past.