Waterloo Region Connected
Trails - Printable Version

+- 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)



RE: Trails - timio - 10-26-2016

(10-26-2016, 07:16 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: The materials should be online soon. I'm not sure why they could not have put them online beforehand so people could read them and come with their questions. Instead, everyone has to digest everything on the fly and staff end up having to re-iterate and answer the same questions over and over for things that are already answered in the materials already. It is a very inefficient use of time especially when it was a limited time period of two hours.

This seems to be the norm with public consultations. Consult based on first impressions rather than well-thought feedback.


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 10-26-2016

(10-26-2016, 07:16 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: There were two proposed paths for the bridge over the creek near Henry Sturm greenway; apparently it needs to be replaced regardless of which route is picked.

Sadly I couldn't stay late enough to talk to anyone, but I was curious as to if they had to replace the bridge.  This is disappointing to say the least.  I now have serious concerns about this bridge.

Quote:The proposed new connection to Victoria Park looks pretty good, as does the new wayfinding signage.

The proposed changes to the existing connection to Victoria Park looks pretty good too.

Indeed, although I need to ask if they are fixing drainage in this area, it has some pretty serious flooding issues.

Quote:The proposed change to the crossing at Victoria/West is uninspiring.

Very much so, but they are limited by the region.  Of course, if the city and region worked together, we might get a better change.  As is, I'm not sure if the city is trying to force the region's hand by building the trail the way it is.  Either way, it could be far better.  Colour me disappointed.

Quote:A lot of people were complaining about the loss of vegetation along the route between Gage and Glasgow, but that was out of scope last night.
...

I'm not surprised, as soon as I saw all that vegetation come out, I knew it would be an issue.  Which makes it all the more frustrating that they aren't widening the trail more in order to avoid taking out trees...you know, in the area where there are so many trees that it wouldn't be noticed.

Quote:Further to that, the city could do a better job of marking off their work areas and cleaning up after themselves. I used that section last week knowing full well and being prepared that I may have to detour around for the intermittent and temporary closures along that stretch, but when I got to Gage there was no sign indicating closure or detour so I kept going.
...

Funny, I've usually had good luck with city staff on the trail, they've tried to be accommodating.  These might not be city workers though.

Oddly enough, it's actually WRPS who've been problematic on the trail for me, I once had to walk through a muddy ditch to go around a police van, but I can understand the need for police investigations.  What I cannot understand is the need for two police cruisers to park beside each other blocking the entire trail ROW, while the officers discuss whatever.

My take on the public consultation, which I will have to follow up with after I contact the staff.

1.  West/Victoria - disappointing, highlights structural issues in our government.

2.  Connection with westward trail is much improved.

3.  Queen needs a wider pedestrian island, there's no reason for it to be so narrow that you cannot fit a bike with trailer on it.

But my biggest issues are more general.

First, 3 meters is too narrow, especially for that section.  It is already quite a busy trail, and this is a 20 year project, think of how busy this trail will be in 20 years.  Cyclist and pedestrian conflict was already the second most common complaint (after crossings).  3 meters is the provincial minimum to be used when there's hard restrictions on ROW, 4 is preferred.  3.6 was identified in the original study--which I already thought was pushing it on narrowness.  They said the reason is that they would lose too many trees, but this is in a thicket, nobody will notice if a few trees out of 1000 go away.  They're already including a 1-2 meter buffer, just pave the buffer.

But this leads to my biggest objection.  The original improvement plan did a great job of highlighting the dual nature of the trail, it serves as a recreational facility for many people who enjoy walking or sitting on the trail, as well as a major transportation corridor for many people.  This public consultation and improvements seem to focus exclusively on the park aspect to the exclusion of the transportation aspect.  This is why the trail isn't wide enough, this is why the questions were about community gardens, and park features, this is why seating on (not beside, but on) the trail is proposed in one design, this is why an example render has people sitting on (again on, not beside) the trail.


RE: Trails - clasher - 10-26-2016

I went to the consultation. I wrote wherever I could that the trail needs to be wider and that they should be lighting the trail now instead of later. I suggested the new bridge be made as wide as possible so people can look over the creek without impeding traffic... many people like to stop there it seems.

The bridge deck was set on fire a couple years ago and it's all wooden so if it's old I'm not surprised it's at the end of its life.

I really don't understand why people are so attached to the scrub brush around the trail. I liked both the ideas for the Henry Strum green space. The designs also showed them paving the path that runs along the creek toward Vic Park but there was such a crowd around the engineer types that I didn't feel like waiting to ask if that was in the plan.


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 10-26-2016

(10-26-2016, 09:43 AM)clasher Wrote: I went to the consultation. I wrote wherever I could that the trail needs to be wider and that they should be lighting the trail now instead of later. I suggested the new bridge be made as wide as possible so people can look over the creek without impeding traffic... many people like to stop there it seems.

The bridge deck was set on fire a couple years ago and it's all wooden so if it's old I'm not surprised it's at the end of its life.

I really don't understand why people are so attached to the scrub brush around the trail. I liked both the ideas for the Henry Strum green space. The designs also showed them paving the path that runs along the creek toward Vic Park but there was such a crowd around the engineer types that I didn't feel like waiting to ask if that was in the plan.

A wide bridge is a good point, it is a choke point even today.  Up in Waterloo the park planning group suggested doubling the bridge, one for cycling--mainly transportation, the other one for leisurely walking and looking.  A very good idea I thought.

The bridge was set on fire, but there doesn't seem to be major structural issues with it, and there are two trestle bridges beside each other, I thought only one was damaged by fire.  Plus, these are heavy duty train bridges mean to carry massive locomotives weighing many many tonnes.  Their use now isn't even remotely similar.  I'd be surprised if there was a legitimate structural reason for replacing them.  I can see a legislative/liability reason.

I'm pretty sure the plan was to pave a path up the creek towards the park, or at least it's connecting two paved paths, so I'm assuming paved, but there is a path in the plan for sure.

If you have questions though, definitely email the staff members involved, they should be responsive.


RE: Trails - KevinL - 10-26-2016

Are the presentation boards online yet?


RE: Trails - Pheidippides - 10-26-2016

As of 2pm they were not yet posted on the engage Kitchener site or the IHT page.


RE: Trails - KevinL - 10-26-2016

That's unfortunate. As noted above, they should have been posted before the consultation; not having them up nearly a day afterward is inexcusable.


RE: Trails - Pheidippides - 10-28-2016

The materials are now up at http://www.Kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/IronHorseTrail.asp. A survey will be up on the Engage Kitchener platform on November 2nd.


RE: Trails - KevinL - 11-05-2016

I just made a post in the Roads thread about the new Manitou bridge; the trail around it is also of note.

A longstanding trail comes up the creek valley from Wabanaki Drive; this can be followed all the way through Homer Watson Park to the trails along the Grand River.

While previously it dead-ended at Manitou, it now forks...

[Image: 5HlvrRj.jpg]

...and the new branch passes under the new bridge.

[Image: 5LH2uDS.jpg]

[Image: 1TtLnSq.jpg]

Alas, this is short-lived, and it only curves around to access the other side of Manitou for now. 

[Image: YI8sO9G.jpg]

[Image: Qk5n2v5.jpg]

I understand the Region has a plan for the trail to be extended further along the creek to Battler Drive, and from there on to Block Line; this would connect the Trans-Canada Trail through this part of Kitchener. Hopefully this useful connector gets built soon.


RE: Trails - Canard - 11-09-2016

Thanks for the photos, Kevin!

While telling a coworker about the illumination on the Spur Line Trail, and searching for an image of it, I stumbled across the following:

[Image: 2011-06-09_17-55-59_626.jpg]

Now, I only started riding this spring, so this shocked me - is this what it actually used to look like?! If so, that's absolutely phenomenal what a transformation it's undergone!


RE: Trails - Markster - 11-09-2016

I walked a length of the Spur Line the summer before construction, from Roger St to Uptown.

Here's an album with several photos of the Before state:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10101217954936567.1073741831.122600895&type=1&l=6baaac60b8


RE: Trails - Viewfromthe42 - 11-09-2016

I'm not sure if I remember, were there objections to the Spur line as there are now to the Iron Horse, not wanting to see it expand for concern about removing trees?


RE: Trails - Canard - 11-09-2016

Thanks for the link, Markster - I swear, with a Sepia filter, you could pass those photos off as being from 20 years ago!

That makes me so hopeful for the Iron Horse Trail upgrades, and future trails in the Region!


RE: Trails - Markster - 11-09-2016

(11-09-2016, 03:24 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: I'm not sure if I remember, were there objections to the Spur line as there are now to the Iron Horse, not wanting to see it expand for concern about removing trees?

The top controversies were:
  1. The lighting  ("I'll have light shining into my bedroom window all night")
  2. Privacy  ("Undesirables will be walking past my house")

Loss of vegetation was a subconcern of #1


RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 11-09-2016

(11-09-2016, 03:10 PM)Canard Wrote: Thanks for the photos, Kevin!

While telling a coworker about the illumination on the Spur Line Trail, and searching for an image of it, I stumbled across the following:

[Image: 2011-06-09_17-55-59_626.jpg]

Now, I only started riding this spring, so this shocked me - is this what it actually used to look like?!  If so, that's absolutely phenomenal what a transformation it's undergone!

I don’t recall it being that overgrown, but parts definitely were that closed in. Significant excavation and grading was done, especially south of Roger St. Any idea when the image was taken (not posted)? It’s possible they increased their vegetation pruning efforts at some point.