+- 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 - danbrotherston - 04-09-2021
(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.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.
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...
Fair enough, I haven't been up that way in a while.
RE: Trails - jamincan - 04-09-2021
It wasn't closed to vehicles the last time I was there, which would be last fall some time.
RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 04-09-2021
(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.
RE: Trails - KevinL - 04-09-2021
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.
RE: Trails - Acitta - 04-09-2021
(04-09-2021, 03:05 PM)westwardloo Wrote: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, 01:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: It continues to bug me that the covered bridge is open to motorvehicle traffic.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.
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...
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 04-09-2021
(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.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 04-09-2021
(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.
RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 04-09-2021
(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.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 05-02-2021
Looks like the property owners at MacKay Crescent got annoyed with trail users walking through their parking lot (I know, it's so terrible when people walk on pavement you own), and so put up concrete blocks.
While I assume they are within their rights, I do wonder if a cyclist could sue them if they crashed.
What bugs me the most is that there are places on the trail where drivers routinely block the trail overlapping from adjacent parking lots, and those property owners have no interest in using the same concrete blocks to stop that behaviour.
But I'm lying, what bugs me the most is that our regional engineers can't design a competent crossing to save their (or anyone's) life.
RE: Trails - bpoland - 06-13-2021
Kitchener will be adding pedestrian crossovers at 8 Iron Horse Trail crossings: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2021/06/12/kitchener-to-improve-safety-at-iron-horse-trail-crossings.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.
RE: Trails - timio - 06-13-2021
(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-region/2021/06/12/kitchener-to-improve-safety-at-iron-horse-trail-crossings.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/status/1402294878311260162
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-13-2021
(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-region/2021/06/12/kitchener-to-improve-safety-at-iron-horse-trail-crossings.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/status/1402294878311260162
And yes, the crossings will be level for the trail, apparently they may even retroactively correct the crossing at Lawrence.
RE: Trails - bpoland - 06-13-2021
Thanks for the details. All sounds great except for the lack of crossride, but I guess their hands are tied by the legislation.
RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 06-13-2021
(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.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-13-2021
(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.