+- 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 - cherrypark - 05-19-2022
Here is the paved entrance in all its glory.
RE: Trails - ac3r - 05-19-2022
The only reason I can see as to why they'd keep it so narrow is possibly the angle of the slope and maybe property lines relating to the UW campus. In any case, a pretty disappointing trail for being downtown but mediocrity and doing the absolute bare minimum is par for the course in this region.
RE: Trails - clasher - 05-20-2022
I hate those lamp posts. I also hate the awkward transition from sidewalk to asphalt... it looks uneven and awkward. Why not integrate the bases for the lights right into the retaining wall and use a modern design instead of those ugly olde timey looking crap... there's a modern looking building right there. This is just "be happy we actually did something" level of work.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 05-20-2022
(05-20-2022, 07:42 AM)clasher Wrote: I hate those lamp posts. I also hate the awkward transition from sidewalk to asphalt... it looks uneven and awkward. Why not integrate the bases for the lights right into the retaining wall and use a modern design instead of those ugly olde timey looking crap... there's a modern looking building right there. This is just "be happy we actually did something" level of work.
Ooof, yeah, nothing about that looks good.
Frankly, it looks like they are going to fail ADA compliance with the slope at the sidewalk as well, although given it's a photograph, it's hard to know for sure.
The lamps are a real shame, but as AC3R says, par for the course for mediocre regional engineering. It's ironic, because the "old timey" lamps are a premium product that the CoK implements downtown, but there was zero consideration given to whether they made sense in this context, or if there was a better way to integrate them into the retaining wall.
Now, I do understand that integrating them into the retaining wall would have required design changes, because that type of wall cannot support a lamp base, but it would have been worth the effort.
Of course, if they'd spent that effort, they'd also have fixed all the rest of the bullshit about that particular trail, like the corners and edges. I will be curious to know where the railing goes (as you know there obviously will be a railing installed).
Honestly, all of this fits with our typical regional engineering. Apply the standards without thinking, without making any effort to look at local context or what makes sense in a specific location. We could replace our entire engineering team with a photocopier.
Which is actually why the ADA compliance issue is more than anything here, actually surprising. Since that's a standard to which they must adhere. Even if their default solution to ADA issues is to disallow all access. Maybe it's barely compliant, or maybe it isn't, and they missed it...it wouldn't be the first time ADA compliance was the one standard they failed to meet.
Honestly, it's hard to know how to respond here, it's great we're building infrastructure, especially useful infrastructure, I just wish the people who were building this were even slightly competent as designers.
FWIW...this isn't unique to cycling infra...although it is the most apparent here, both because I'm familiar with how it should look, but also because it's the one with the fewest standards that force our engineers to do a competent job. But when it comes to roads, our engineers similarly phone it in, with context free photocopying of road standards.
I don't think this gets solved without major staff turnover.
RE: Trails - bravado - 05-20-2022
Does our local staff have any incentive to do creative and useful work? How can we incentive them as regular citizens?
RE: Trails - KevinL - 05-23-2022
The lamp-posts date back to Ion construction, and were similarly criticized then, I recall.
RE: Trails - cherrypark - 05-27-2022
On the trail, summarizing a response from the regional staff on this section:
- The grade is technically to code for AODA compliance, even if appearing steep.
- As guessed, the trail is on private property so reading between the lines is the minimum land was appropriated for this to meet design minimums.
- Design expects that since this is a multimodal zone, cyclists should be slowing/dismounting at that point anyways.
Such as it is - not much is going to change until the code and design requirements do.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 05-28-2022
(05-27-2022, 04:59 PM)"cherrypark Wrote: On the trail, summarizing a response from the regional staff on this section:
- The grade is technically to code for AODA compliance, even if appearing steep.
- As guessed, the trail is on private property so reading between the lines is the minimum land was appropriated for this to meet design minimums.
- Design expects that since this is a multimodal zone, cyclists should be slowing/dismounting at that point anyways.
Such as it is - not much is going to change until the code and design requirements do.
Disappointing answer.
I'm not there in person, but if the reality is anything like the picture, I'd be going out with a level and a measuring tape and verifying their claim that it is in AODA compliance. It really doesn't look like it does.
Of course, regional expectations that cyclists will be "slowing or dismounting" when moving from one piece of cycling infra to another is really revealing.
I'm sorry guys, I miss you folks, but I don't miss the region.
RE: Trails - ac3r - 05-28-2022
(05-27-2022, 04:59 PM)cherrypark Wrote: - Design expects that since this is a multimodal zone, cyclists should be slowing/dismounting at that point anyways.
Haha, yeah right.
But I figured this was going to be the case. Property lines and the slope being AODA compliant were my first guesses as to why this ended up turning out the way it did.
RE: Trails - bravado - 05-28-2022
Is it safe to assume that our city designers get paid more than you would expect for someone just checking the compliance boxes? What a disappointment and lack of vision.
RE: Trails - cherrypark - 05-28-2022
Meanwhile looking like a missed opportunity with the MUT going by that plastics company triangle of contaminated land. Would make for some nice park addition along the MUT, perhaps even with a small cafe/shop addition around all the university buildings as they fence along the whole length.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 05-29-2022
(05-28-2022, 11:21 PM)cherrypark Wrote: Meanwhile looking like a missed opportunity with the MUT going by that plastics company triangle of contaminated land. Would make for some nice park addition along the MUT, perhaps even with a small cafe/shop addition around all the university buildings as they fence along the whole length.
They cannot allow that land to be occupied because of the contamination. It is dangerous to human health. They could decontaminate it, but it would be a significant investment.
RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 05-29-2022
(05-29-2022, 01:54 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:(05-28-2022, 11:21 PM)cherrypark Wrote: Meanwhile looking like a missed opportunity with the MUT going by that plastics company triangle of contaminated land. Would make for some nice park addition along the MUT, perhaps even with a small cafe/shop addition around all the university buildings as they fence along the whole length.
They cannot allow that land to be occupied because of the contamination. It is dangerous to human health. They could decontaminate it, but it would be a significant investment.
Um, if it’s bad enough that it’s not even safe to bicycle through or walk on, then it’s bad enough that it definitely should be cleaned up forthwith.
The canoe museum in Peterborough ran into a similar situation. They were going to build on an iconic site right next to the lift locks (currently a portion of a park, open to the public), but then contamination from a nearby site was detected. Now they’re building further downstream in a much less interesting location, and the contamination will not be cleaned up in the foreseeable future. How does that make any sense?
RE: Trails - cherrypark - 05-29-2022
(05-29-2022, 01:54 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:(05-28-2022, 11:21 PM)cherrypark Wrote: Meanwhile looking like a missed opportunity with the MUT going by that plastics company triangle of contaminated land. Would make for some nice park addition along the MUT, perhaps even with a small cafe/shop addition around all the university buildings as they fence along the whole length.
They cannot allow that land to be occupied because of the contamination. It is dangerous to human health. They could decontaminate it, but it would be a significant investment.
Fully realizing that is a hot potato bill that the company owning it is certainly hoping someone else will pick up, but with a lack of parkland downtown, it would be nice to somehow see a settlement that gets it remediated to a quality it can return to being used.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 05-29-2022
(05-29-2022, 08:41 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(05-29-2022, 01:54 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: They cannot allow that land to be occupied because of the contamination. It is dangerous to human health. They could decontaminate it, but it would be a significant investment.
Um, if it’s bad enough that it’s not even safe to bicycle through or walk on, then it’s bad enough that it definitely should be cleaned up forthwith.
The canoe museum in Peterborough ran into a similar situation. They were going to build on an iconic site right next to the lift locks (currently a portion of a park, open to the public), but then contamination from a nearby site was detected. Now they’re building further downstream in a much less interesting location, and the contamination will not be cleaned up in the foreseeable future. How does that make any sense?
The argument that regional staff were making was that moving through is fine, because people are not lingering and more importantly not disturbing or playing in the dirt.
Now, you all know my opinion of regional engineers, but I know relatively little about soil contamination (compared with say, my knowledge of transportation) and I believe they needed approval from the ministry of the environment for this, so I have little option here but to trust what they say.
Do I think it should be cleaned up...of course yes. But I'm also happy that the trail is built, even though it isn't cleaned up.