Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: Trails
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hopefully they'll add some greenery or fencing between the railroad tracks. Not that there's anything wrong with seeing trains (kids would love it), but it'd make for a more pleasing trail experience.
Does anyone know if the Glasgow St MUT between Belmont and Park is being extended any further, or is it just going to stop halfway?
Not sure if they can without some changes to the ROW through that section. Waterloo GIS seems to show the property boundaries are tighter up at the Park St. end (and not sure if that survey on the GIS is right given the fence line of the AirBoss plant after their entrance from Glasgow).
The GIS data does suggests that fence is on city property, that's totally believable.

But even if you wanted to leave the fence, the road is more than wide enough to move the curb in. The intersection really is the challenge, either significant property takings would be required and demolishing outdoor features, or losing a turn lane.

The city's intention is to extend it further, but I don't think they actually have a plan of how to do that.
Yeah one of those situations where the opposing side (North) is probably the better run up to and continuation at Park, but isn't how the rest of the road best fits it. That intersection does have some exceptionally wide radiuses though, so perhaps that can help shift the vehicle lanes a bit to sneak the MUT up there. Do you know where the idea is to take it to? Community bikeway running along that road until it becomes Wellington?
(10-23-2021, 02:40 PM)GtwoK Wrote: [ -> ]The Record reporting the link from the Iron Horse to the Transit Hub will be started in November.

From having a detailed look at the site plan / renderings of the transit hub, I realized that the trail link actually includes a new bridge over King St — it doesnt use the platform that is part of the rail grade separation bridge that was done. Presumably thats going to be part of this trail link up (since it would otherwise be a dead end), but does the $3m cost seem to include that?

Also, even with the bridge, it ends at GO Train level — the transit hub was to include outdoor stairs to take you to and from the platform. But it seems odd to build those stairs now since they were very much a part of the transit hub. Anyone know what the plan is here?

Renderings of the area (including my own model made from the site plans)

[Image: YtEXwjR.jpg]
h[Image: HOaFYCv.jpg]ttps://imgur.com/undefined[Image: UgzNpz5.jpg]

After driving past this a few times now, the current construction does not include a new bridge from the trail to the transit hub. Instead, the trail runs down the slope next to the UW School of Pharmacy (on the left side of the ROW in that last image), connecting up with the King St ROW at about the LRT station
(01-08-2022, 02:29 AM)GtwoK Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-23-2021, 02:40 PM)GtwoK Wrote: [ -> ]The Record reporting the link from the Iron Horse to the Transit Hub will be started in November.

From having a detailed look at the site plan / renderings of the transit hub, I realized that the trail link actually includes a new bridge over King St — it doesnt use the platform that is part of the rail grade separation bridge that was done. Presumably thats going to be part of this trail link up (since it would otherwise be a dead end), but does the $3m cost seem to include that?

Also, even with the bridge, it ends at GO Train level — the transit hub was to include outdoor stairs to take you to and from the platform. But it seems odd to build those stairs now since they were very much a part of the transit hub. Anyone know what the plan is here?

Renderings of the area (including my own model made from the site plans)

[Image: YtEXwjR.jpg]
h[Image: HOaFYCv.jpg]ttps://imgur.com/undefined[Image: UgzNpz5.jpg]

After driving past this a few times now, the current construction does not include a new bridge from the trail to the transit hub. Instead, the trail runs down the slope next to the UW School of Pharmacy (on the left side of the ROW in that last image), connecting up with the King St ROW at about the LRT station

I assume the bridge will be part of the transit terminal which will be built...sometime....for some absurd cost.
(01-07-2022, 10:49 PM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah one of those situations where the opposing side (North) is probably the better run up to and continuation at Park, but isn't how the rest of the road best fits it. That intersection does have some exceptionally wide radiuses though, so perhaps that can help shift the vehicle lanes a bit to sneak the MUT up there. Do you know where the idea is to take it to? Community bikeway running along that road until it becomes Wellington?

Long term it will connect to Park St. which is supposed to get separated bike lanes (as well as to the nearby Green St. which will be a "bikeway").  I have absolutely no idea how they propose to put separated bike lanes on Park St. but that Kitchener city planner of 15 years from now's problem.

Yeah, it's not a short term plan.

[attachment=8107]
New information about the Stewart St and Joseph St MUTs reconstruction is on EngageWR now, including the drawings package.

Nothing particularly new, though I am glad to see that the MUT transition into the intersection at Victoria and through to the bike path is going to be properly graded down instead of the pedestrian curb cut and slopes like every wrist-breaking intersection on the Victoria St E MUT.
(03-23-2022, 04:23 PM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]New information about the Stewart St and Joseph St MUTs reconstruction is on EngageWR now, including the drawings package.

Nothing particularly new, though I am glad to see that the MUT transition into the intersection at Victoria and through to the bike path is going to be properly graded down instead of the pedestrian curb cut and slopes like every wrist-breaking intersection on the Victoria St E MUT.

I never did check out the Vic St. MUT, I guess I should have. Yeah, the region doesn't really pay a lot of attention to getting grading right for cycling infra, although even the city refuses to build flush curbs (and we know they can, they often build flush curbs between the road and sidewalks/bike lanes).

But all this looks really good, narrowing the roads is great. The level of detail is excellent. And ultimately, I think the proposed infra is about as well designed as can be expected. FWIW, one could probably check the turn radii at Stewart St., they look a little wide (i.e., not compliant with Complete Streets) but honestly, given they probably are trying to appease Home Depot, it's probably not even worth pointing out. (Although it's worth remembering that even when building a project FOR cyclists AND doing everything right, we *still* put motor vehicle concerns front and centre, the claims of a "war on cars" amounts to the most obvious kind of fake victimhood)
(03-23-2022, 04:23 PM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]New information about the Stewart St and Joseph St MUTs reconstruction is on EngageWR now, including the drawings package.

Nothing particularly new, though I am glad to see that the MUT transition into the intersection at Victoria and through to the bike path is going to be properly graded down instead of the pedestrian curb cut and slopes like every wrist-breaking intersection on the Victoria St E MUT.

I didn't realize Stewart was getting a MUT as well, that's good. I hope it all connects well, especially the Victoria St crossing. It will be great to finally be able to bypass Victoria Park to get to the IHT from downtown.

I still don't understand the transition between Waverly and Cherry Park at all, but I can tolerate it...
(03-23-2022, 06:48 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-23-2022, 04:23 PM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]New information about the Stewart St and Joseph St MUTs reconstruction is on EngageWR now, including the drawings package.

Nothing particularly new, though I am glad to see that the MUT transition into the intersection at Victoria and through to the bike path is going to be properly graded down instead of the pedestrian curb cut and slopes like every wrist-breaking intersection on the Victoria St E MUT.

I didn't realize Stewart was getting a MUT as well, that's good. I hope it all connects well, especially the Victoria St crossing. It will be great to finally be able to bypass Victoria Park to get to the IHT from downtown.

I still don't understand the transition between Waverly and Cherry Park at all, but I can tolerate it...

Yeah that transition is not particularly clear... especially Waverly entering Cherry Park where you sort of have to make a no-mans land crossing of the intersection.

I think the biggest question I have here is what the section from Stewart to Joseph is going to look like through that parking garage land. Concerned its going to get no real dedicated MUT treatment or something that just dumps you into a busy parking lot and without sufficient traffic directing where Joesph crosses the tracks. These designs look good though, so hopefully that means the city was able to keep that theme through the whole way.
(03-23-2022, 06:48 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-23-2022, 04:23 PM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]New information about the Stewart St and Joseph St MUTs reconstruction is on EngageWR now, including the drawings package.

Nothing particularly new, though I am glad to see that the MUT transition into the intersection at Victoria and through to the bike path is going to be properly graded down instead of the pedestrian curb cut and slopes like every wrist-breaking intersection on the Victoria St E MUT.

I didn't realize Stewart was getting a MUT as well, that's good. I hope it all connects well, especially the Victoria St crossing. It will be great to finally be able to bypass Victoria Park to get to the IHT from downtown.

I still don't understand the transition between Waverly and Cherry Park at all, but I can tolerate it...

Waverly is supposed to get a MUT as well, along side the Church, but that has been delayed for...*reasons*...I suspect there is some opposition from the church and they either have to spend more money to rework a lot of the church yard (and build a retaining wall) or they have to take out the parking *gasp*... so they probably considered it a lower priority.

As usual, very little value is placed on connected infra...I realize Waverly isn't exactly a dangerous road, in that case, it's probably the "feel" of continuity, rather than the feeling of safety that's important, and I can't reallyt blame them for prioritizing the feeling of safety first.
They did at least put the stop signs at the Waverley-Gage intersection, which has helped the speed of cars around that somewhat blind turn a lot.
(03-24-2022, 10:39 AM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]They did at least put the stop signs at the Waverley-Gage intersection, which has helped the speed of cars around that somewhat blind turn a lot.


Yeah, that helped a bit. I have no idea how they will do the crossing long term though.