Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: Trails
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Also in the news, apparently Kitchener has decided it will actually maintain the Spur Line Trail this year. I wasn't aware that was even a possibility that wouldn't happen. Ahh politics.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We have committed to maintaining <a href="https://twitter.com/RegionWaterloo">@RegionWaterloo</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SpurLineTrail?src=hash">#SpurLineTrail</a> for the remainder of the season until a maintenance agreement has been made.</p>&mdash; City of Kitchener (@CityKitchener) <a href="https://twitter.com/CityKitchener/status/808760960399921152">December 13, 2016</a></blockquote>
Oh wow, looks like City of Kitchener is stepping it up!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We have committed to maintaining <a href="https://twitter.com/RegionWaterloo">@RegionWaterloo</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SpurLineTrail?src=hash">#SpurLineTrail</a> for the remainder of the season until a maintenance agreement has been made.</p>&mdash; City of Kitchener (@CityKitchener) <a href="https://twitter.com/CityKitchener/status/808760960399921152">December 13, 2016</a></blockquote>
I'm seeing double.

The fact that the municipal government was surprised that no one was clearing the trail isn't encouraging. Waterloo seemed to get it.

It's good that they're simply biting the bullet and doing it rather than not while they squabble over who should.
We, myself included are often quick with criticism and suggestions for improvement, so for a change of pace I would like to congratulate the City of Waterloo, so far, on maintaining the majority its trails on a pretty timely basis (at least the sections of the ones that I've used since the snow has flown: IHT, Spur, Laurel mostly). Obviously there is always room for improvement, but it has been a decent response, relatively speaking, to a challenging start to the season so far. The section of the MUT along Caroline got missed after the first big dumping, and the path between the City Centre parking lot and the creek regularly gets cleared, but then gets infilled with snow from the adjacent parking lot, but small wins are progress nonetheless.


In a different train of thought, I wonder if it is time that we stop calling our active transportation paths, like the Spurline and Iron Horse "trails" and instead call start calling them "thruways" or something more descriptive of the function they carry-out. "Trail" comes with a connotation of rugged and wild, something that requires specialized equipment and time to meander and explore. So when they go unploughed, unmaintained, and fall in to disrepair it is kind of living up to its name and fitting with preconceived expectations of its name. The general public then fails to see problems with the trails because after all, aren't those the very qualities part of the appeal, challenge, and fun of taking the "trail?" Borrowing a term like thruway or expressway or something else from the broader transportation network implies a higher level of expectations of service (e.g. lighting, plowing, etc.).

This would fit well with something someone suggested pages and pages ago that the trails actually be made a special kind of limited access road. An expressway is a kind of road limited to certain types of vehicles (e.g. no mopeds, no cyclists, no pedestrians, etc.). Trails could just be a different kind of road limited to a different set of vehicle types (cyclists, pedestrians, etc.) and with that would come a certain expectations and requirements for lighting, clearing, markings, etc.
Good suggestion. Does 'Activeway' work? That has the right ring to it, I think.
(12-16-2016, 09:36 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]We, myself included are often quick with criticism and suggestions for improvement, so for a change of pace I would like to congratulate the City of Waterloo, so far, on maintaining the majority its trails on a pretty timely basis (at least the sections of the ones that I've used since the snow has flown: IHT, Spur, Laurel mostly). Obviously there is always room for improvement, but it has been a decent response, relatively speaking, to a challenging start to the season so far. The section of the MUT along Caroline got missed after the first big dumping, and the path between the City Centre parking lot and the creek regularly gets cleared, but then gets infilled with snow from the adjacent parking lot, but small wins are progress nonetheless.


In a different train of thought, I wonder if it is time that we stop calling our active transportation paths, like the Spurline and Iron Horse "trails" and instead call start calling them "thruways" or something more descriptive of the function they carry-out. "Trail" comes with a connotation of rugged and wild, something that requires specialized equipment and time to meander and explore. So when they go unploughed, unmaintained, and fall in to disrepair it is kind of living up to its name and fitting with preconceived expectations of its name. The general public then fails to see problems with the trails because after all, aren't those the very qualities part of the appeal, challenge, and fun of taking the "trail?" Borrowing a term like thruway or expressway or something else from the broader transportation network implies a higher level of expectations of service (e.g. lighting, plowing, etc.).

This would fit well with something someone suggested pages and pages ago that the trails actually be made a special kind of limited access road. An expressway is a kind of road limited to certain types of vehicles (e.g. no mopeds, no cyclists, no pedestrians, etc.). Trails could just be a different kind of road limited to a different set of vehicle types (cyclists, pedestrians, etc.) and with that would come a certain expectations and requirements for lighting, clearing, markings, etc.

Your experiences have clearly been more positive than mine.  So far, my commute home tonight has been the only time that most of my route has been plowed *AND* I haven't been locked out (literally, by a gate with a padlock).  However, there were still substantial problems with road plows creating snow berms at the end of trails, and the MUT along Caroline is not being plowed to an appropriate width (its' being treated like a sidewalk, instead of a MUT which has upset a number of pedestrians).  And the connecting trail at the end of Carter Ave. seems not to even be plowed, as it hasn't been touched at all.  All told, I'm pretty disappointed, the only thing that is worse than the city's trails IMO has been property owner cleared sidewalks.  Yes, I'm aware the weather has been pretty bad, but the roads have been well maintained, it's a matter of policy, not ability.

That being said, I agree, we have to change everything around our trails policy, naming included.  We don't all have the same understanding of the meaning of a name, there are plenty of people who understand trails to be something exclusively recreational.  A new name might go a long way to helping overcome this.
Maybe something like Trailway? Sounds similar to railway, which is what some of these were based on, keeping that familiar naming style. "Way" hints that it is a way from point a to point b. Trailway sounds a bit like thruway or freeway, in that we want people to be using them as connectors on their trips.
As I was walking on the iron horse between park and Caroline today I was thinking how unfortunate it will be to lose all those mature trees and that city should have at least insisted the new trail be built first (i know technically not possible with a whole other building still to come) so any new trees could start growing right away. They would have 5-6 years of growth on them since it was first proposed and 3-4 years growth since it was approved.
(12-22-2016, 06:06 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]As I was walking on the iron horse between park and Caroline today I was thinking how unfortunate it will be to lose all those mature trees and that city should have at least insisted the new trail be built first (i know technically not possible with a whole other building still to come) so any new trees could start growing right away.  They would have 5-6 years of growth on them since it was first proposed and 3-4 years growth since it was approved.

It's quite possible to buy and plant more mature trees as well.  As long as you're willing to pay the price.
It's very possible. But, it's even more imperative that mature trees who may have lost roots during the transplanting process receive adequate water. Municipalities and institutions seem bad at this in the best of times...

Our Forestry departments are under-funded. It's unlikely they would spring for larger trees even when it's called for (I agree it would be in this case).
(12-22-2016, 09:15 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]It's very possible. But, it's even more imperative that mature trees who may have lost roots during the transplanting process receive adequate water. Municipalities and institutions seem bad at this in the best of times...

Our Forestry departments are under-funded. It's unlikely they would spring for larger trees even when it's called for (I agree it would be in this case).

I don't know that I would be.  You're right we're limited by funding.  I'm willing to wait for more trees, than have fewer trees sooner.

But that's just me.

The whole thing bugs me though.  In the huge thicket of trees where they're considering widening the trail, they wouldn't cull 80 trees to widen the trail to a (barely) appropriate width.  But just north of there, they've cut down nearly everything.  Where's the sense.

When we cut down stuff, we don't get anything, then when we need to cut stuff down to build something, then we decide not to.

I realize that's not all a city decision, but it is my perception of it right now.

I am *very* anxious to see what changes staff make to the IHT plan.
(12-22-2016, 09:30 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know that I would be.  You're right we're limited by funding.  I'm willing to wait for more trees, than have fewer trees sooner.

I agree with the rest of your post, but it's not a question of waiting for more trees, versus fewer trees sooner. tomh009 is right that you can plant mature trees. With less resources, Forestry will plant juvenile trees, but at a spacing appropriate for their mature size. While it might be very sensible to plant young trees, with a view to thinning them as they grow, that's not the practice. We plant more-or-less according to mature spacing, and then watch some (no idea how many) die and leave gaps.

I have a suspicion it would ultimately be more cost effective to plant fewer individual larger trees, and care for them properly, than to plant as many young trees as we do now, neglect them, see some (again- no idea how many exactly) perish, cut those out, and replace them.
I went out with a group today for a run at the Hydrocut. I only got into trail running this past year and I've been avoiding it so far this winter not knowing what conditions would be like. It turned out to be much better than I expected; the fatbikers have done a good job of establishing a solid, even base and the main multi-use trail has been getting excellent usage leaving a solid, wide trail. It's definitely worthwhile checking out if you're looking to go out for a walk. You wouldn't even need snowshoes.

[Image: WtWfJrdl.jpg]
AODA New January 2017 Compliance Laws

Recreational trails and beach access routes

When an affected organization plans to build or redevelop a recreational trail, it must consult the public, including persons with disabilities regarding:
  • The trail’s slope
  • The need for and location of ramps on the trail
  • The need for, location of and design of rest areas, passing areas, viewing areas, amenities and other pertinent features of the trail
  • Where the obligated organization is a municipality, it must also consult with its municipal Accessibility Advisory Committee.
  • Organizations must also follow the new requirements, including minimum width and height guidelines and maximum slope requirements.
(12-31-2016, 01:42 PM)MacBerry Wrote: [ -> ]AODA New January 2017 Compliance Laws

Recreational trails and beach access routes

When an affected organization plans to build or redevelop a recreational trail, it must consult the public, including persons with disabilities regarding:
  • The trail’s slope
  • The need for and location of ramps on the trail
  • The need for, location of and design of rest areas, passing areas, viewing areas, amenities and other pertinent features of the trail
  • Where the obligated organization is a municipality, it must also consult with its municipal Accessibility Advisory Committee.
  • Organizations must also follow the new requirements, including minimum width and height guidelines and maximum slope requirements.

I wonder if any of these changes will require us to start building better sidewalks.

I also wonder if any of these requirements would have mandated actually having a walkway from the sidewalk to the building I now work in.  A brand new building by the way...that doesn't even have a walkway.  Honestly.