Trails

[jamincan]

There's also one on the 401 near Conestoga College, the Parkway between 8 and Courtland, and across the railway tracks at River.

[Viewfromthe42]

Cyclists would be very unlikely to use a bridge.

The island on University, near Carter, is great. However, traffic gets so backed up heading south on Weber that an island in this area would see a lot of cars for any pedestrians or bicycles to weave through, a great risk for getting lost.

My dream would be to see an underpass, like at Lexington, that would hook up to either the adjacent sidewalk (tricky), or that followed either side of the creek on over to either side of the bridge at Moses (expropriation and NIMBY concerns).

In all likelihood, there's likely only enough political will for an island, and we'll see pedestrians and cyclists struck when crossing the southbound lanes to the island, as a driver in one lane will stop for the crossing, but the other lane will not be able to see anyone who is crossing, and will speed into them at 60km/h.

[plam]

A pedestrian bridge doesn't need to take much space at all if you build it Tokyo-style, with stairs parallel to the road.

But I can think of only a single pedestrian bridge in Kitchener and Waterloo (across University avenue, between UW and the parking lots).  Is there political will to build more?  Would bicyclists be willing to carry their bikes up/down the stairs?

Probably not. It's not really worth it to take the one at UW either. It is easier to carry bikes up/down when there are ramps on the stairs, but still not great. There is a dedicated bicycle bridge in Montreal over a highway, but no stairs are involved there.

Because of the water an underpass wouldn't be viable, I'd think. Underpasses are also problematic for other reasons.

I do happen to live right next to the Weber intersection, but fortunately I don't need to cross it at peak times very often. The fact that the trail doesn't quite continue on the other side of Laurel Creek but instead a half-block up at Mackay means that there are a few more options, and that also makes it further from Lincoln.

(When I do cross, northbound I'll usually cross at Laurel and then either through the parking lot, which is terrible, or sometimes directly at the trail crossing, but then I potentially have to hang out in the middle of the street for a while. Southbound I'd usually be heading on Weber to Erb anyway, so no need to cross.)

[Osiris]

There's also a pedestrian bridge over the expressway, joining Boniface and Dixon. It has no steps, and I enjoyed looking out over the expressway construction when I lived in the area a few years ago.

[MidTowner]

It's closer to Laurel than most lights would be, but I don't think it's too close to justify a pedestrian crossing, given how important the trail is. If it's 150 meters to Laurel, that's a five-minute detour plus the wait time at the lights.

As noted, a pedestrian island would lead to dangerous situations. A bridge doesn't accommodate cyclists very well. A pedestrian-activated light wouldn't inconvenience car traffic too much, and is simple.

[tomh009]

In all likelihood, there's likely only enough political will for an island, and we'll see pedestrians and cyclists struck when crossing the southbound lanes to the island, as a driver in one lane will stop for the crossing, but the other lane will not be able to see anyone who is crossing, and will speed into them at 60km/h.

Personally, I think the risk would be the greatest for cyclist accidents: there are enough near-suicidal cyclists around who will dash into a gap, whether safe or not.  (Note that I am NOT tarring all cyclists with the same brush, but the "I-feel-invincible" minority is non-trivial.)

[zanate]

I am interested in knowing whether there is any plan to make it better. It seems to be too close to Lincoln to add a pedestrian signal, but also far enough to make one not want to walk to Lincoln to cross. Crossing mid-block on Weber Street is dangerous at the best of times, and impossible at the worst of times. Is a pedestrian overpass feasible at all at this location? How much would it cost? Is there enough room on either side to build one?

I cross there every day when I'm biking. It is miserable.

I believe it will shortly get better, but I'm not sure about the timeline. (2016? 2017?) I'd recommend you contact John Griffin (Environmental Project Manager) at the City of Waterloo, as he'll know its status and the current plan. (He also was a major part of bringing about the Laurel Trail improvements, so I'm sure he'd appreciate the feedback.)

[ookpik]

I cross there every day when I'm biking. It is miserable.

It's also exceedingly dangerous

Even if you go to Lincoln and wait to cross on a green light it's not unusual for impatient drivers to cut you off as they make right turns on red. Alas the New rules at pedestrian crossovers and school crossings "do not apply to pedestrian crosswalks at intersections with stop signs or traffic signals..."

Similarly for the Iron Horse Trail crossing on Park St even though it's only one lane in each direction. What were they [not] thinking when they dug up and redid Park St a few years ago?

[rangersfan]

Update on the Walter Bean Trail:

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/622147...completion

The idea of a pedestrian bridge from RIM Park to Snyder's flats is something that I had never heard of before.

[timc]

Similarly for the Iron Horse Trail crossing on Park St even though it's only one lane in each direction. What were they [not] thinking when they dug up and redid Park St a few years ago?

I was on the trails committee a few years ago, but I can't remember all that clearly. The problem at that crossing is that it really is too close to a signalized intersection to put a pedestrian signal there. I also don't think that part of Park Street was redone at that time. There was a proposal to do *something*, but I can't remember what it was. Putting better signs would be a good start, but any changes were likely delayed until after the trail is uprooted for 155 Uptown (whenever *that* happens).

[ookpik]

Similarly for the Iron Horse Trail crossing on Park St even though it's only one lane in each direction. What were they [not] thinking when they dug up and redid Park St a few years ago?

I was on the trails committee a few years ago, but I can't remember all that clearly. The problem at that crossing is that it really is too close to a signalized intersection to put a pedestrian signal there. I also don't think that part of Park Street was redone at that time. There was a proposal to do *something*, but I can't remember what it was. Putting better signs would be a good start, but any changes were likely delayed until after the trail is uprooted for 155 Uptown (whenever *that* happens).

Yes, it's close to John St. Rather than signals they could have put in a small refuge island between the two lanes so that pedestrians and cyclists would only need to cross one lane of traffic at a time. And yes this section was part of the Park St project a few years ago. Hopefully they'll revisit this when they reroute the IHT for the 155 Park project.

In a similar vein, there's also a need for a better/safer crossing of the IHT at Victoria near the City Cafe. What's the point of having a trail system, especially a major one like IHT, when users have to make 100m detours to cross streets safely?

[ookpik]

The idea of a pedestrian bridge from RIM Park to Snyder's flats is something that I had never heard of before.

That's because it was "long ago scraped[sic]" from the Walter Bean Trail plans—according to The Record's, um, scrappy proof-reader

[clasher]

In a similar vein, there's also a need for a better/safer crossing of the IHT at Victoria near the City Cafe. What's the point of having a trail system, especially a major one like IHT, when users have to make 100m detours to cross streets safely?

The city recently finished their report on the IHT and has a whack of changes planned, you can read the whole report online but it's 175 pages so it's a biggie. I took a screen shot for this thread to show their draft concepts. I particularly love the use of the island at Stirling/Courtland.

[ookpik]

I can't believe I could actually agree with Outhit on anything. But on this I do: Kitchener fumbles follow-through on Grand River trail 

Community donations surpassed $6 million, volunteer fundraisers concluded their campaign, and taxpayers agreed to maintain the trail. Most of it has been built. It's a treat that many enjoy. But it should have been completed and fully maintained.

Planners point to private landowners who are unwilling to host the trail in certain sections, and to river-related maintenance challenges. The fact that these hurdles have yet to be overcome tells us three things:
• Projects need a champion inside or outside city hall or they risk stalling.
• Politicians are often better at celebrating (sometimes prematurely) than they are at getting things done.
• Councils have to pay more attention to maintaining what's already built, before they move on to the next shiny thing.

It's time for Kitchener council to complete and maintain the Walter Bean trail with the same priority it assigned to celebrating it so long ago.

BTW the article "Gaps in river trail still years from completion" by Greg Mercer linked above indicates that sections of the trail in city of Waterloo and the townships remain incomplete or ill-maintained. So this isn't just the fault of Kitchener. Realize too that this isn't just tax money. A full $6,000,000 is public donations. Some $800,000 remains unspent. How much more public support do politicians need to see in order to move them to action?
Where is the hue and cry about this travesty? Especially by those who donated their own time and money some 20 years ago.

[ijmorlan]

Planners point to private landowners who are unwilling to host the trail in certain sections, and to river-related maintenance challenges.

They should expropriate. Sound harsh? That’s what they would do for a highway; it wouldn’t even be a discussion. Non-motor-vehicle traffic remains a second-class citizen.