+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Trails (/showthread.php?tid=378)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
RE: Trails - tomh009 - 11-24-2018
(11-24-2018, 03:45 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Under that rationale we shouldn't build extra road lanes until they are needed either.
In general, I don't think we do: witness the 401 as a prime example. If you build a road, I expect that you would build it for something like a 20-year traffic forecast. Counterexamples surely exist, but I don't think extra lanes are generally being built unless they are expected to be needed, as the cost is quite substantial.
In this case, this is really a mid-distance connecting trail that is likely to see few pedestrians commuting, and also relatively few using it for exercise. So I would say that it should be planned for that same 20-year traffic volume, but for bicycles, not cars. And it's quite possible that 3m is a sufficient width for that, if pedestrians are rare.
RE: Trails - Pheidippides - 11-24-2018
I didn't take the other's comments as suggesting that the MUT be cancelled; I was suggesting that there is a double standard being applied.
We build new roads and widen existing roads with more lanes than demand currently dictates in anticipation of future demand, but they won't do that with trail.
In fact even when current demand does dictate a wider trail is needed, i.e. the IHT, they still build it narrower than recommended.
It is basically saying that because no one was walking or riding this route previously we don't expect many to use it in the future so let's build the minimum infrastructure possible.
Even though this route was, in parts, physically impossible, and for other parts dangerous, inconvenient, and inhospitable to bike or walk previously. It is the whole "no one is crossing the river no bridge is necessary" analogy.
Even after it is built it won't be very enticing to use being next to 70kph speed zones in some parts (which of course will actually 85-90kph in actuality).
It will be a good addition to the grid and I am happy to see it moving forward, but as with most active transportation projects locally it is far from ideal.
Although I think I spotted some official cross-rides at Pioneer and H-W Blvd in the drawings.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 11-24-2018
(11-24-2018, 10:27 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: ...
Although I think I spotted some official cross-rides at Pioneer and H-W Blvd in the drawings.
I didn't see this in the last plans I saw (at ATAC). Do you have any links? I'd be very happy to see this, given our comments at ATAC were "as per usual, you've failed to give any consideration whatsoever of cyclists at intersections, pls fix".
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 11-24-2018
(11-24-2018, 09:55 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(11-24-2018, 03:45 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Under that rationale we shouldn't build extra road lanes until they are needed either.
In general, I don't think we do: witness the 401 as a prime example. If you build a road, I expect that you would build it for something like a 20-year traffic forecast. Counterexamples surely exist, but I don't think extra lanes are generally being built unless they are expected to be needed, as the cost is quite substantial.
In this case, this is really a mid-distance connecting trail that is likely to see few pedestrians commuting, and also relatively few using it for exercise. So I would say that it should be planned for that same 20-year traffic volume, but for bicycles, not cars. And it's quite possible that 3m is a sufficient width for that, if pedestrians are rare.
I'm not sure about MTO, they're probably limited by the extreme cost of their projects, but at a Regional and City Level, we vastly overbuild our roads, both, in the past, for things like Frederick and Belmont where plans changed, but roads continue to be reconstructed in their vastly oversized state, and on roads like Bearinger, Davenport, Westheights Dr., and others where road diets were easy to justify by traffic numbers even decades later and yet are almost impossible to implement due to the misguided perception of something being "taken away".
And don't think this has ended. At a Regional level an explicitly stated goal of the last two transportation master plans has been to not overbuild roads, and yet we see roads like Westmount which are vastly over built, and Highland which is planned to be widened on the assumption that traffic volumes will justify it in 10-20 years.
Yeah, we over build roads like its going out of style.
RE: Trails - tomh009 - 11-24-2018
(11-24-2018, 10:38 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(11-24-2018, 09:55 PM)tomh009 Wrote: In general, I don't think we do: witness the 401 as a prime example. If you build a road, I expect that you would build it for something like a 20-year traffic forecast. Counterexamples surely exist, but I don't think extra lanes are generally being built unless they are expected to be needed, as the cost is quite substantial.
And don't think this has ended. At a Regional level an explicitly stated goal of the last two transportation master plans has been to not overbuild roads, and yet we see roads like Westmount which are vastly over built, and Highland which is planned to be widened on the assumption that traffic volumes will justify it in 10-20 years.
Yes, that is what I suggested: road construction is likely based on something like a 20-year traffic forecast. (Setting aside past construction projects from 30+ years ago.)
And I suggested that a similar criteria might then be appropriate for trail construction. IHT should be wider than this trail, I think: it will have more bicycle traffic and far more pedestrian traffic. So shouldn't the projected traffic levels be considered when building the trail?
RE: Trails - Pheidippides - 11-29-2018
The benches for the IHT were installed today. It was too dark to take a picture. They are wood and have two slots for bike wheels on the end. I don't think you could lock a bike, just rest it in the slot.
RE: Trails - Canard - 11-29-2018
I think that makes sense. You would put your bike in the slot, and then sit on the bench for a moment for a break, then continue on.
(some bikes don't have kickstands)
RE: Trails - Pheidippides - 12-01-2018
(11-29-2018, 10:29 PM)Canard Wrote: I think that makes sense. You would put your bike in the slot, and then sit on the bench for a moment for a break, then continue on.
(some bikes don't have kickstands)
Yes, I wasn't expecting a place to lock up a bike. I just wanted to be clear to others in my description so they weren't disappointed. I think the only time you would need to lock your bike up along the trail is if you run in to mechanical difficulties and need to come back for it.
Here is what they look like:
Also, the Molok garbage bins are still wrapped in their plastic and are accumulating garbage all around, and it looks like the bike repair station at IHT/Queen has been removed permanently (or they aren't putting it back until the spring).
RE: Trails - Spokes - 12-01-2018
I like them!!
RE: Trails - Canard - 12-01-2018
What a beautiful design!
I love the pictogram, and also the pressure plates to stabilize the wheel.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 12-01-2018
Anyone know why the connector trail between the IHT and Vic Park is closed with a rather permanent looking "temporarily closed" sign?
They're not done construction, but it never had closed signs up while they were doing construction, and there is no new construction since the signs went up.
Frankly, it's confusion and absurd seeming, just more "ignore the closed signs" training.
RE: Trails - Spokes - 12-01-2018
Lack of winter maintenance like LRT stops?
RE: Trails - Canard - 12-01-2018
My guess is that's it, because it's gravel, and it's easier to just say "Closed" and say "We told you so" if someone gets hurt then to actually deal with it. The active rail line crossing being incomplete under the snow wouldn't help things, either - that was brutal for hauling the bike over every time in the summer.
I thought they said they were going to have that done this fall?!
RE: Trails - KevinL - 12-01-2018
Probably the ever-onerous foot-dragging that comes from coordinating with a railway.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 12-01-2018
(12-01-2018, 05:42 PM)Canard Wrote: My guess is that's it, because it's gravel, and it's easier to just say "Closed" and say "We told you so" if someone gets hurt then to actually deal with it. The active rail line crossing being incomplete under the snow wouldn't help things, either - that was brutal for hauling the bike over every time in the summer.
I thought they said they were going to have that done this fall?!
I thought so as well.
As for winter maintenance, the city usually just puts up a "no winter maintenance" sign. Heck, they even put them on trails they do maintain...