+- 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 - 06-15-2021
(06-14-2021, 10:33 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(06-14-2021, 10:00 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: Raised crossings would be great, but I don't really get the complaint about the curves. It adds, what, half a second to your trip? But it makes it a little more interesting! I see historically the curve existed to accommodate on-street parking which is frustrating, but now it provides space for some trees (and is the only block next to the LRT with trees), which I would gladly have a little curve for.
If you're alone on the trail, they're not much of a problem when walking or on a bike, but if you are on a bike and there is another trail user, either going the opposite direction, or walking in the same direction, it's awkward and tight. I know from experience. You'll notice on streetview, the new curves are even tighter than the old ones. If you wanted keep some curves, they could have been wider, with greater trail width at the curve, or the trees could have gone on the other side where they would be less likely to interfere with the LRT and the trail would have been straight.
Yes, it's really a question of sufficient width. I, too, like curves.
But then I also like biking (and walking) on unpaved trails. There are some (unofficial?) dirt trails on the Mill Race Trail in Cambridge, on the 401 side, that I was very happy to discover. Very little traffic so the single-bike width is still quite manageable, just need to pull over if someone is coming the other way.
RE: Trails - dtkvictim - 06-15-2021
(06-14-2021, 10:33 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(06-14-2021, 10:00 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: Raised crossings would be great, but I don't really get the complaint about the curves. It adds, what, half a second to your trip? But it makes it a little more interesting! I see historically the curve existed to accommodate on-street parking which is frustrating, but now it provides space for some trees (and is the only block next to the LRT with trees), which I would gladly have a little curve for.
If you're alone on the trail, they're not much of a problem when walking or on a bike, but if you are on a bike and there is another trail user, either going the opposite direction, or walking in the same direction, it's awkward and tight. I know from experience. You'll notice on streetview, the new curves are even tighter than the old ones. If you wanted keep some curves, they could have been wider, with greater trail width at the curve, or the trees could have gone on the other side where they would be less likely to interfere with the LRT and the trail would have been straight.
As is, it's just a bad design. If they build a road like that, they'd lose their license.
Fair enough if you've found it narrow or crowded. I haven't experienced it in that area, but it's frustrated me elsewhere so I understand. I really think greenery between between sidewalks and roads would provide one of the single biggest boosts to the pedestrian experience (aside from the improvements that more directly prevent harm), so I would reject that idea that just moving trees to the other side is the same. Though, ideally we would have the situation that we see here: trees on both sides.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-15-2021
(06-15-2021, 08:34 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(06-14-2021, 10:33 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: If you're alone on the trail, they're not much of a problem when walking or on a bike, but if you are on a bike and there is another trail user, either going the opposite direction, or walking in the same direction, it's awkward and tight. I know from experience. You'll notice on streetview, the new curves are even tighter than the old ones. If you wanted keep some curves, they could have been wider, with greater trail width at the curve, or the trees could have gone on the other side where they would be less likely to interfere with the LRT and the trail would have been straight.
As is, it's just a bad design. If they build a road like that, they'd lose their license.
Fair enough if you've found it narrow or crowded. I haven't experienced it in that area, but it's frustrated me elsewhere so I understand. I really think greenery between between sidewalks and roads would provide one of the single biggest boosts to the pedestrian experience (aside from the improvements that more directly prevent harm), so I would reject that idea that just moving trees to the other side is the same. Though, ideally we would have the situation that we see here: trees on both sides.
That's fair, although there are roads that are more in need of separation. Ultimately tomh is correct, it wouldn't be an issue with gentler wider curves.
To be honest, there is a fundamental problem with a lot of our trail infra, which is that leisurely walking is increasingly incompatible with the cycle traffic of people going places.
It's great that we are doing things like the DTG which is completely separate, but eventually we're going to have to reckon with the choices we've made for some of these trails. Failing to widen the IHT and Spur Line Trail...or even like...place the lights in such a location as to enable future widening...is quite frankly short sighted.
RE: Trails - tomh009 - 06-15-2021
(06-15-2021, 09:02 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: It's great that we are doing things like the DTG which is completely separate, but eventually we're going to have to reckon with the choices we've made for some of these trails. Failing to widen the IHT and Spur Line Trail...or even like...place the lights in such a location as to enable future widening...is quite frankly short sighted.
Didn't they widen the IHT, from maybe 2m to 3m? Only two years ago, or so?
RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 06-15-2021
(06-15-2021, 09:19 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(06-15-2021, 09:02 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: It's great that we are doing things like the DTG which is completely separate, but eventually we're going to have to reckon with the choices we've made for some of these trails. Failing to widen the IHT and Spur Line Trail...or even like...place the lights in such a location as to enable future widening...is quite frankly short sighted.
Didn't they widen the IHT, from maybe 2m to 3m? Only two years ago, or so?
Problem is, a major traffic route like that should really have maybe 1.5m per direction for each of pedestrians and cyclists. That’s 6m. Still only a very narrow 2-lane motor vehicle route so cheap to build by comparison.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 06-15-2021
(06-15-2021, 09:58 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(06-15-2021, 09:19 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Didn't they widen the IHT, from maybe 2m to 3m? Only two years ago, or so?
Problem is, a major traffic route like that should really have maybe 1.5m per direction for each of pedestrians and cyclists. That’s 6m. Still only a very narrow 2-lane motor vehicle route so cheap to build by comparison.
Yes, they widened it from about 2.4 to 3.6 (or maybe 3.0, they were arguing for a narrower trail at one point, I don't think they won that argument, but I haven't measured).
Of course, I was in the public consultation and everyone said minimum 5 meters (1.5m per direction for bicycles and a 2m sidewalk). Riding it now, it's heavily congested even on a weekday.
RE: Trails - plam - 06-16-2021
(06-15-2021, 10:02 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(06-15-2021, 09:58 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Problem is, a major traffic route like that should really have maybe 1.5m per direction for each of pedestrians and cyclists. That’s 6m. Still only a very narrow 2-lane motor vehicle route so cheap to build by comparison.
Yes, they widened it from about 2.4 to 3.6 (or maybe 3.0, they were arguing for a narrower trail at one point, I don't think they won that argument, but I haven't measured).
Of course, I was in the public consultation and everyone said minimum 5 meters (1.5m per direction for bicycles and a 2m sidewalk). Riding it now, it's heavily congested even on a weekday.
It's funny how induced demand is a thing even for bicycles. Much less harmful for bicycles than for cars though. Please induce more of this demand!
RE: Trails - ac3r - 06-18-2021
The City of Kitchener will be partnering with Google to add street view to the city trails: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/city-of-kitchener-trails-orange-trike-google-street-view-1.6065887
RE: Trails - Rainrider22 - 06-18-2021
(06-18-2021, 10:10 AM)ac3r Wrote: The City of Kitchener will be partnering with Google to add street view to the city trails: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/city-of-kitchener-trails-orange-trike-google-street-view-1.6065887Very cool...
RE: Trails - nms - 06-22-2021
I've noticed at times that the Laurel Trail through Waterloo Park can become crowded. I've generally been biking in the later afternoon or evening searching for ice cream or a food truck. Unfortunately it seems like there is not enough room for cyclist to navigate around streams of pedestrian traffic that is either traveling in the same direction or in the opposite direction of travel. There is a definite pinch point around Perimeter and the Clay & Glass where there is little room for people to step aside to pass each other (or for a bike to bike around them). Covid-19 distancing also makes it fun.
RE: Trails - Acitta - 06-22-2021
(06-22-2021, 12:50 AM)nms Wrote: I've noticed at times that the Laurel Trail through Waterloo Park can become crowded. I've generally been biking in the later afternoon or evening searching for ice cream or a food truck. Unfortunately it seems like there is not enough room for cyclist to navigate around streams of pedestrian traffic that is either traveling in the same direction or in the opposite direction of travel. There is a definite pinch point around Perimeter and the Clay & Glass where there is little room for people to step aside to pass each other (or for a bike to bike around them). Covid-19 distancing also makes it fun.So go slower, it won't kill you, or take an alternate route if you are in a big hurry. I find it annoying that some cyclists complain about pedestrians the way some motorists complain about cyclists.
RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 06-22-2021
(06-22-2021, 08:11 AM)Acitta Wrote:(06-22-2021, 12:50 AM)nms Wrote: I've noticed at times that the Laurel Trail through Waterloo Park can become crowded. I've generally been biking in the later afternoon or evening searching for ice cream or a food truck. Unfortunately it seems like there is not enough room for cyclist to navigate around streams of pedestrian traffic that is either traveling in the same direction or in the opposite direction of travel. There is a definite pinch point around Perimeter and the Clay & Glass where there is little room for people to step aside to pass each other (or for a bike to bike around them). Covid-19 distancing also makes it fun.So go slower, it won't kill you, or take an alternate route if you are in a big hurry. I find it annoying that some cyclists complain about pedestrians the way some motorists complain about cyclists.
I didn’t see a complaint about pedestrians. The trail is just crowded.
That being said, the trail should be twinned further. I don’t see how to twin it at the CCGG, and there is a small area near Perimeter where some more excavation would be needed but other than that there is enough space to finish the twinning to Erb/Caroline. Same comment north to University.
RE: Trails - tomh009 - 06-22-2021
(06-22-2021, 08:19 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(06-22-2021, 08:11 AM)Acitta Wrote: So go slower, it won't kill you, or take an alternate route if you are in a big hurry. I find it annoying that some cyclists complain about pedestrians the way some motorists complain about cyclists.
I didn’t see a complaint about pedestrians. The trail is just crowded.
It's a bit busy at peak times, like some parts of the IHT, requiring cyclists to slow down or wait to pass. But it doesn't seem fundamentally different from rush hour traffic for cars in some parts of the city.
That said, I'm not opposed to twinning the trail. I just don't see it as the top priority for cycling infrastructure.
RE: Trails - Acitta - 06-22-2021
(06-22-2021, 08:19 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:I guess that "induced demand" works for cyclists and pedestrians as it does for cars.(06-22-2021, 08:11 AM)Acitta Wrote: So go slower, it won't kill you, or take an alternate route if you are in a big hurry. I find it annoying that some cyclists complain about pedestrians the way some motorists complain about cyclists.
I didn’t see a complaint about pedestrians. The trail is just crowded.
That being said, the trail should be twinned further. I don’t see how to twin it at the CCGG, and there is a small area near Perimeter where some more excavation would be needed but other than that there is enough space to finish the twinning to Erb/Caroline. Same comment north to University.
RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 06-22-2021
(06-22-2021, 11:35 AM)Acitta Wrote:(06-22-2021, 08:19 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: That being said, the trail should be twinned further. I don’t see how to twin it at the CCGG, and there is a small area near Perimeter where some more excavation would be needed but other than that there is enough space to finish the twinning to Erb/Caroline. Same comment north to University.I guess that "induced demand" works for cyclists and pedestrians as it does for cars.
Indeed! Turns out lots of people will bicycle (or walk, or take transit) if appropriate infrastructure is available. The difference is that we can afford to build enough bikeways for everybody, but we can’t afford to build enough roads. Additionally, “enough” roads changes a pleasant city into a nasty freeway interchange, whereas bikeways don’t destroy the urban feel in the same way.