(06-22-2021, 11:56 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(06-22-2021, 10:05 PM)Acitta Wrote: When I am on the MUT on Homer Watson where there are hardly any pedestrians, then I go 30kmh. When I am on the IHT when it is crowded with pedestrians, I try to stay under 20. My heavier e-bike could do real damage if I were to hit a child.

So in other words, the infrastructure is not appropriate. Bicycles should be able to go at cruising speed on the main trails. This implies wider trails with separate bicycle and pedestrian lanes. The trails often cut across the street network so road-adjacent routes are not a substitute.

(06-23-2021, 12:35 AM)Acitta Wrote:

(06-22-2021, 11:56 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: So in other words, the infrastructure is not appropriate. Bicycles should be able to go at cruising speed on the main trails. This implies wider trails with separate bicycle and pedestrian lanes. The trails often cut across the street network so road-adjacent routes are not a substitute.

I don't think that there is enough room to widen the IHT and the Laurel Trail. The IHT was already just widened. I don't think that we want to remove the trees that make the trail pleasant to be on just to make it wider. It is a shared trail with pedestrians and cyclists mixed, and I don't see it as possible to separate them.

(06-23-2021, 09:32 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(06-23-2021, 12:35 AM)Acitta Wrote: I don't think that there is enough room to widen the IHT and the Laurel Trail. The IHT was already just widened. I don't think that we want to remove the trees that make the trail pleasant to be on just to make it wider. It is a shared trail with pedestrians and cyclists mixed, and I don't see it as possible to separate them.

I’m not sure about the IHT, but you raise a good point about trees. A wide trail with no vegetation just wouldn’t be the same.

I don’t understand how you can say the Laurel Trail can’t be widened. To the contrary, there is tons of space to widen it, except for the little bit where it squeezes between the LRT tracks and the CCGG; even there it could be slightly widened by paving the last bits of available space (I’m assuming the twinned section doesn’t need to be widened).

(06-23-2021, 10:12 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(06-23-2021, 09:32 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: I’m not sure about the IHT, but you raise a good point about trees. A wide trail with no vegetation just wouldn’t be the same.

I don’t understand how you can say the Laurel Trail can’t be widened. To the contrary, there is tons of space to widen it, except for the little bit where it squeezes between the LRT tracks and the CCGG; even there it could be slightly widened by paving the last bits of available space (I’m assuming the twinned section doesn’t need to be widened).

Most sections of the IHT have space as well...while some places might need trees removed, like through Vic Park, there are lots of trees in that area. Other sections already lost all the trees to make it wider, or there is enough space to widen anyway, since the train was double tracked. And we aren't talking about a huge amount of width...it only needs to be 5 meters for a comfortable space for all.

For the laurel trail, even where it squeezes past CCGG there is easily an extra meter of space that could be used closer to the tracks, given the position of the track heater.

(06-23-2021, 08:04 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(06-23-2021, 10:12 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Most sections of the IHT have space as well...while some places might need trees removed, like through Vic Park, there are lots of trees in that area. Other sections already lost all the trees to make it wider, or there is enough space to widen anyway, since the train was double tracked. And we aren't talking about a huge amount of width...it only needs to be 5 meters for a comfortable space for all.

For the laurel trail, even where it squeezes past CCGG there is easily an extra meter of space that could be used closer to the tracks, given the position of the track heater.

As the person that prompted the earlier discussion on this forum about cycling through a crowded Victoria Park, and as a person that routinely complains about the lack of greenery in our city: The earlier comment you made about providing alternative routes is far better than what you're suggesting here. I'd personally much rather deal with the crowding than lose any trees along the IHT (even in the places where there are "lots of trees"). Also keep in mind that for large stretches of the IHT the trees are only 1 or 2 trees deep, so removing them means no more trees.

For me, nearly 100% of the trips I make on the IHT would be faster if I felt that the alternative routes were safe enough, so I'd rather focus on making that improvement. So yes, the trails will always be a mixture of transportation and leisure, but there are better options than widening (at least for now) that will reduce the conflict caused by overcrowding.

(06-23-2021, 09:58 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Quite honestly, I think any busy MUT should segregate peds and cyclists, it's really just a comfort thing, it makes it more pleasant to use for everyone. And like I said, it really isn't a significant difference in cost or trees. MUTs really only work well when they are sparsely used.

(07-09-2021, 07:55 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Why do we suck so freaking bad!?

(07-09-2021, 07:26 PM)timc Wrote:

(07-09-2021, 07:55 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Why do we suck so freaking bad!?

That’s been planned for years, hasn’t it?

(07-09-2021, 08:28 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: I can sort of understand... Conflict between trails users, visibility for buses, and not stopping on the train tracks. But what frustrating design.