08-16-2017, 09:22 AM
(08-16-2017, 08:10 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(08-15-2017, 10:24 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Cherry St. is not ideal for the trail. There isn't room for a MUT (without losing a lane anyway), it's got about the biggest hill of any route, and it's much busier than you'd think (despite the no truck sign, plenty of trucks use it when they realize that they cannot pass under the railway bridge). Crossing Park St. at Cherry also has some visibility issues with the bridge. Worst of all, they just rebuilt the trail access at the end with zero cycling provisions (not so much as a curb cut).
This is probably why they went with a hybrid, strong opposition to Cherry, but being unwilling to risk having the route shut down by railway opposition.
I also disagree with the "long term" idea, I agree in principle, but I have serious doubts about a willingness to fix things in the future, and worse a bad solution now, which gets little use, merely provides evidence for those who wish to shut down improvements.
That being said, I don't think any of these routes were bad enough to be worth not building on that account.
Thanks for the clarification on Cherry St. I didn’t realize it was steep or busy. Google maps isn’t a topographical map!
By “long-term” I don’t mean in the by-and-by, I mean that the properties in question are ripe for redevelopment and the trail could be built one block at a time as things happen in the next few years. Also, if a strip of land from the adjacent property is used, rather than part of the railway right-of-way, I don’t see how the railway would be involved.
Regardless of all of this, having a trail on the east side of the branch line all the way down to where it meets up with the Iron Horse trail would be helpful for anybody coming from the south. It’s not just about linking the Iron Horse to the transit hub but also about improving the network.
FYI: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#...Jl-be4Nwrg
Google maps does have a terrain map, not quite topographical, but interesting.
It doesn't have the resolution to show the hill much, it is not really that Cherry has a big hill, just, much bigger than any other route (or at least, less gradual).
And yeah, the traffic mainly comes from living there, I'm frustrated by the number of trucks down my "no trucks" street. The "no trucks" sign routinely has truck tire tracks running over it, no jokes. Again, it's not terribly busy, just worse than the other options, and moreover, combined with the hill, not great. FWIW, neighbourhood children generally ride on the sidewalk there.
As for a trail along the railway, I think everyone, including staff, agree that it is the "right" option, just not feasible in the given timeframe for this project. Whether they will be less likely to pursue it in the long term with this trail being built, I don't really know. Not sure what you mean by the "east" side though? (I'm still thinking about Waterloo directions) . The north side definitely has a building conflict. South side would incur another railway crossing. It's a tough trade off.