(04-09-2021, 03:05 PM)westwardloo Wrote: [ -> ] (04-09-2021, 01:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]It continues to bug me that the covered bridge is open to motorvehicle traffic.
There is literally no reason for it to be permitted, and it is destroying a rare heritage asset. You want to know how the heritage people are full of shit...they'd be upset about this if they cared about heritage. I barely care about heritage, and I am bothered by this...
This bridge isn't close to their house so they don't care. haha That being said, I believe it has been closed to vehicle traffic for the past couple years, mostly because there it a crack it the wooden support beam from allowing vehicles over it. I don know if the article said anything about it, but I would be surprised if they open this up to vehicles again after the repairs.
Fair enough, I haven't been up that way in a while.
It wasn't closed to vehicles the last time I was there, which would be last fall some time.
(04-09-2021, 01:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]It continues to bug me that the covered bridge is open to motorvehicle traffic.
There is literally no reason for it to be permitted, and it is destroying a rare heritage asset. You want to know how the heritage people are full of shit...they'd be upset about this if they cared about heritage. I barely care about heritage, and I am bothered by this...
The absolute maximum it can save anybody is 6 minutes:
https://goo.gl/maps/faDB3Q1F4ktf8vT59
And that is for somebody who literally just wants to cross the bridge. For a typical motor vehicle trip I doubt it can save more than a minute or two.
So I’m definitely agreed that motor vehicles don’t need to use that bridge.
The article does state that funding is mainly to replace its base wooden beam with a concealed steel beam, so presumably it could handle vehicles better once upgraded.
(04-09-2021, 03:05 PM)westwardloo Wrote: [ -> ] (04-09-2021, 01:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]It continues to bug me that the covered bridge is open to motorvehicle traffic.
There is literally no reason for it to be permitted, and it is destroying a rare heritage asset. You want to know how the heritage people are full of shit...they'd be upset about this if they cared about heritage. I barely care about heritage, and I am bothered by this...
This bridge isn't close to their house so they don't care. haha That being said, I believe it has been closed to vehicle traffic for the past couple years, mostly because there it a crack it the wooden support beam from allowing vehicles over it. I don know if the article said anything about it, but I would be surprised if they open this up to vehicles again after the repairs.
I was there on Mar. 25 and it was open to vehicular traffic. It was closed in Sept. 2019 and reopened in Nov. 2019 after repairs.
(04-09-2021, 06:30 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]The article does state that funding is mainly to replace its base wooden beam with a concealed steel beam, so presumably it could handle vehicles better once upgraded.
I mean, not only is it work that isn't needed if we would close it to cars, it is actually corrupting the heritage value of the bridge by replacing the traditional structure with a modern structure.
Like I said, if "heritage advocates" actually cared about heritage, they'd be objecting to cars on this bridge instead of opposing sidewalks and bike lanes and housing.
(04-09-2021, 05:17 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ] (04-09-2021, 01:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]It continues to bug me that the covered bridge is open to motorvehicle traffic.
There is literally no reason for it to be permitted, and it is destroying a rare heritage asset. You want to know how the heritage people are full of shit...they'd be upset about this if they cared about heritage. I barely care about heritage, and I am bothered by this...
The absolute maximum it can save anybody is 6 minutes:
https://goo.gl/maps/faDB3Q1F4ktf8vT59
And that is for somebody who literally just wants to cross the bridge. For a typical motor vehicle trip I doubt it can save more than a minute or two.
So I’m definitely agreed that motor vehicles don’t need to use that bridge.
Actually that saves zero time. At least by Google Map's imprecise measurements, because that's a 6 minute drive around, but over the bridge is a 1 minute drive, and it's also a 1 minute walk...so if the bridge was closed to cars, they could just walk across the bridge in 1 minute.
(04-09-2021, 07:58 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Actually that saves zero time. At least by Google Map's imprecise measurements, because that's a 6 minute drive around, but over the bridge is a 1 minute drive, and it's also a 1 minute walk...so if the bridge was closed to cars, they could just walk across the bridge in 1 minute.
True enough. But my purpose was to put an upper bound on time saved by using the bridge. Replacing a route that crosses the bridge with one that goes to the bridge, then detours around to the other side of the bridge, then continues on, is the best case scenario for the bridge saving time. In most routes the shortest non-bridge route won’t go particularly near the bridge at all so the actual time savings will always be less.
I would argue that horse carts should be able to use the bridge too but I’m pretty sure that can be done without opening it up to motor vehicle traffic. Somewhere I saw video of some overweight vehicle using a bridge it definitely shouldn’t have. It got across but obviously put a huge amount of wear on the bridge in just a few minutes. I hope we don’t someday lose this bridge due to overuse of that nature.
Kitchener will be adding pedestrian crossovers at 8 Iron Horse Trail crossings:
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...sings.html
They mention Glasgow in the article, I wonder which other ones will be getting improvements. It also says some crossings will be raised which is nice (assuming the trail is smooth without a dip at the curb).
On that note, I really wish Waterloo had prioritized smooth crossings along the IHT on Caroline, particularly the small streets between Allen and William -- some of the curbs give you quite the jolt when biking. Another one that stands out (literally) is the Spurline at Roger Street.
(06-13-2021, 09:18 AM)bpoland Wrote: [ -> ]Kitchener will be adding pedestrian crossovers at 8 Iron Horse Trail crossings: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...sings.html
They mention Glasgow in the article, I wonder which other ones will be getting improvements. It also says some crossings will be raised which is nice (assuming the trail is smooth without a dip at the curb).
On that note, I really wish Waterloo had prioritized smooth crossings along the IHT on Caroline, particularly the small streets between Allen and William -- some of the curbs give you quite the jolt when biking. Another one that stands out (literally) is the Spurline at Roger Street.
Union, Glasgow, Gage, West, Mill, Madison, Palmer, Kent
Details in this tweet, with link to council report:
https://twitter.com/mattjrodrigues/statu...8311260162
(06-13-2021, 09:28 AM)timio Wrote: [ -> ] (06-13-2021, 09:18 AM)bpoland Wrote: [ -> ]Kitchener will be adding pedestrian crossovers at 8 Iron Horse Trail crossings: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...sings.html
They mention Glasgow in the article, I wonder which other ones will be getting improvements. It also says some crossings will be raised which is nice (assuming the trail is smooth without a dip at the curb).
On that note, I really wish Waterloo had prioritized smooth crossings along the IHT on Caroline, particularly the small streets between Allen and William -- some of the curbs give you quite the jolt when biking. Another one that stands out (literally) is the Spurline at Roger Street.
Union, Glasgow, Gage, West, Mill, Madison, Palmer, Kent
Details in this tweet, with link to council report: https://twitter.com/mattjrodrigues/statu...8311260162
And yes, the crossings will be level for the trail, apparently they may even retroactively correct the crossing at Lawrence.
Thanks for the details. All sounds great except for the lack of crossride, but I guess their hands are tied by the legislation.
(06-13-2021, 11:15 AM)bpoland Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the details. All sounds great except for the lack of crossride, but I guess their hands are tied by the legislation.
I don’t get it. Does this mean the crossride at Erb on Peppler is illegal?
Also, you can have a street which is bicycle-only in one direction, right? In other words, it’s one-way, “bicycles excepted”. Such a street can intersect a larger street or road at a traffic light, and vehicular traffic on the side street can drive straight across on the green.
So what prevents them from designating the multi-use trail as a street which is bicycles-only as to vehicular traffic?
If motor traffic needs to be permitted due to defects in the legislation, then have a 20m long section with a motor vehicle lane one-way towards the main street; in other words, illegal to enter and unreachable by any actual motor vehicle traffic.
(06-13-2021, 11:29 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ] (06-13-2021, 11:15 AM)bpoland Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the details. All sounds great except for the lack of crossride, but I guess their hands are tied by the legislation.
I don’t get it. Does this mean the crossride at Erb on Peppler is illegal?
Also, you can have a street which is bicycle-only in one direction, right? In other words, it’s one-way, “bicycles excepted”. Such a street can intersect a larger street or road at a traffic light, and vehicular traffic on the side street can drive straight across on the green.
So what prevents them from designating the multi-use trail as a street which is bicycles-only as to vehicular traffic?
If motor traffic needs to be permitted due to defects in the legislation, then have a 20m long section with a motor vehicle lane one-way towards the main street; in other words, illegal to enter and unreachable by any actual motor vehicle traffic.
Crossrides are not permitted to be combined with PXOs under Ontario provincial legislation.
They are permitted when combined with full pedestrian signals as you find at Erb and Peppler.
Now, you might ask why they aren't using a full pedestrian signal, and there is a very good reason for that.
The region is in control of all traffic signals in the region, even those not on regional roads, and they refuse to place one at the trail. As a result the most the city engineers can do is place a PXO.
So it's mostly the fault of the region and province.