(05-29-2022, 09:13 AM)cherrypark 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.

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.

(05-28-2022, 01:44 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(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.

Of course, regional expectations that cyclists will be "slowing or dismounting" when moving from one piece of cycling infra to another is really revealing.

(05-29-2022, 09:44 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Now that being said, there has been investment in revitalizing and improving some downtown parks or greens, and that is good (it's clear to me they are underused) but if there really wasn't enough space, then you'd see investment in creating more.

(05-29-2022, 09:39 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.

(05-29-2022, 08:48 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(05-28-2022, 01:44 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Of course, regional expectations that cyclists will be "slowing or dismounting" when moving from one piece of cycling infra to another is really revealing.

Not that I disagree here because we see this in even worse situations, but I feel like this is more damning of the existing "cycling infrastructure". I wouldn't be surprised if it was missed somewhere along the line that the King St sidewalk is "cycling infrastructure" because it doesn't look like it, and it really shouldn't be considered cycling infra in its current form. Even if it wasn't missed, I still agree in this situation that cyclists should be cautious on a downhill which may have pedestrians, and merging to King St which may have pedestrians, though a concrete wall is probably not the right way to do it...

(05-29-2022, 08:48 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(05-29-2022, 09:44 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Now that being said, there has been investment in revitalizing and improving some downtown parks or greens, and that is good (it's clear to me they are underused) but if there really wasn't enough space, then you'd see investment in creating more.

Sorry, this is off topic of the thread, but what spaces to you find underused? I have suspicions, and I agree they are underused, but I disagree that the right investments were made. I "bleat" about needing more park space, but places like Vogelsang 100% miss the mark for me.

(05-29-2022, 08:48 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(05-29-2022, 09:39 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.

I'm sure the Region will be showing some concern for the few homeless people set up there then, right? Right...?

I hope whatever is in the ground there isn't too harmful to them.

(05-29-2022, 09:43 PM)jwilliamson Wrote: Dan, what are the new downtown parks in Waterloo you were referring to? Did you mean the Northdale parks or are there some others I've not heard about?

(05-29-2022, 10:01 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Maybe Mary Allen Park? It's about 800m from King/Erb, about the same distance as from King/Queen to Civic Centre Park or Sand Hills Park (neither one of which is busy).

(05-30-2022, 01:18 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(05-29-2022, 09:43 PM)jwilliamson Wrote: Dan, what are the new downtown parks in Waterloo you were referring to? Did you mean the Northdale parks or are there some others I've not heard about?

(05-29-2022, 10:01 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Maybe Mary Allen Park? It's about 800m from King/Erb, about the same distance as from King/Queen to Civic Centre Park or Sand Hills Park (neither one of which is busy).

Yes, I was referring to the expansion of Mary Allen Park. I also thought the city was planning a new park at Alexandra St. And that's of course on top of the creation of the downtown square which, while concrete is still a large public space that has been created since I moved here.

(05-30-2022, 08:53 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(05-30-2022, 01:18 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Yes, I was referring to the expansion of Mary Allen Park. I also thought the city was planning a new park at Alexandra St. And that's of course on top of the creation of the downtown square which, while concrete is still a large public space that has been created since I moved here.

Are you thinking of Alexandra Park? That now goes through to William, approximately doubling its size.

(05-30-2022, 09:28 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(05-30-2022, 08:53 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Are you thinking of Alexandra Park? That now goes through to William, approximately doubling its size.

Yes, I think you're right, that is what I was thinking about.

(06-08-2022, 11:31 AM)bravado Wrote: I was doing the 2022 pedal poll on the Cambridge to Paris rail trail today and somebody pointed out this incredible sign about the width of the trail. Such accuracy!

(06-08-2022, 04:47 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(06-08-2022, 11:31 AM)bravado Wrote: I was doing the 2022 pedal poll on the Cambridge to Paris rail trail today and somebody pointed out this incredible sign about the width of the trail. Such accuracy!

I’d be more impressed if we made the same decision about trails that we made about residential streets many years ago: they’re all built to a sufficient standard so that nobody feels a need to specifically advertise the features of each. Imagine if every residential street had a sign giving the exact width, explicitly stating that it’s paved, and details of grade.

All the trails should be paved, and should all be at least 3m wide with certain fairly flat maximum grades. In those rare places where the trail has to be narrower or steeper due to local conditions, that should be called out on signage. The expense of doing this would obviously be trivial compared to the money spent on roads, and could probably be paid for by slightly trimming the standard width of residential streets.

(06-08-2022, 05:52 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: I understand the accessibility reasons for paving trails, especially those that double as transportation infrastructure. But I think it would be a little sad for every single trail to be paved. A lot of trails (especially the primarily recreational ones) are a little sliver of escape from our excessively paved world, and to pave all trails would lessen the reprieve they offer IMO.

Maybe the right balance with accessibility is still to pave everything, I don't know.