Next time I'm out there I'll take a look at the grading, but my memory is that there are two ish things wrong in your diagram.
First, I think the ponding is somewhat south of the "A B" line you drew on the map.
And second, I believe there is a higher berm (i.e., higher than the IHT) between the IHT and the sidewalk where you have labeled "treed dirt".
I could be wrong about either one, but regardless, it still may be possible to dig a trench up the trail till you get to Cherry St. and secondly, dig a cut through the berm to allow water to flow onto the street. It all depends on the specific grades.
I'm glad it's on their radar, but I do wish they'd taken it more seriously with actual drainage infrastructure and/or lifting of the trail.
I agree the the actual ponding is a bit further south of my line. I just wanted to give a sense of the terrain and the cross section really doesn't vary that much between the access trail to Cherry and the new cement bench pad.
(07-06-2018, 10:08 AM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]The meeting was postponed, so there was no discussion. The report that was widely derided suggesting removal of the Peppler crossing was sent back to staff.
Details are scant. Basically all we know is what's in that communication I quoted.
We don't know what staff have been directed to do. Are they going to consider both crossings now? Are they going to entrench on moving the crossing? We don't know.
So the Peppler crossing came back to committee yesterday
As a reminder, staff's position was to rebut the 2-crossing proposal (keeping the Peppler one, and adding a Laurel Trail one) saying for many reasons in some important book that this was bad.
The committee voted unanimously to direct staff to look at the 2 crossing option.
Quote:Regional council voted unanimously at a planning and works committee on Tuesday to look into keeping the Peppler Street crossing and add a second set of lights down the street, where the Laurel Creek Trail meets Bridgeport Road.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener...-1.4891190
Finally.
My money's on staff going and looking at it and finding it can't be done because of some important book somewhere.
It wasn't that they directed them to look at it, they directed them to implement it.
Staff can refuse, but if so, they should be replaced...
After recent over-rulings from council of staff recommendations (e.g. University Ave bike lanes between, the Bridgeport signal, etc.) I wouldn't be surprised if staff stopped bringing "minor" issues like this to council for approval unless they absolutely need a by-law changed, or tried to have authority delegated to the commissioner of transportation for the sake of "efficiency" of project management.
(11-07-2018, 02:33 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]My money's on staff going and looking at it and finding it can't be done because of some important book somewhere.
They already did that one, and that's what's in the report that initially came back in July (and came to council this week).
That little parking lot beside the IHT and railway crossing was paved today... they put down little bits of asphalt at the edges of the trail where there was a little curb but I don't know why they didn't pave that short stretch completely.
LOL @ "I love the centre line," Bliefert said. "When people are walking their dogs they don't even realize they're just walking down the middle of the path. As soon as you have a line, you know to be on one side or the other."
Now if only the retractable leash crowd would get the memo, those things are a scourge... seems most people can't be arsed to train their dogs and just hook them up to these and let them roam while technically keeping them on a leash. I imagine there's technically a by-law against those super long leashes, much like letting cats running at large is against bylaw, it's pretty much ignored by everyone.
(11-23-2018, 12:49 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]The drawings for the Homer-Watson MUT and associated bridges are available on the region's bid and tender site (Hanson Ave to Conestoga College Blvd).
I would post them, but they are +100MB and 100s of pages.
Trail is only going to be 3.0m, the 3 bridges will be 4.0m.
Work to begin about April 1, 2019 and asphalt by October 4, 2019. There is a performance bonus of $1,500/day for early completion.
I would expect this trail to have far fewer pedestrians than the IHT, though, and mostly end up being used for bicycles. Bicycle traffic, too, might end up being lower than the IHT. Or are those poor assumptions?
I would say that's a fair assumption
Under that rationale we shouldn't build extra road lanes until they are needed either.
(11-24-2018, 03:45 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]Under that rationale we shouldn't build extra road lanes until they are needed either.
I don't think people are saying that these MUTs shouldn't be built, just that we might expect them to have lower traffic and a different traffic mix. They still contribute to a minimum bike grid.