+- 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 - Canard - 09-15-2017
Ha! That's cute, I haven't actually ever ridden there (just further North, at the top of the Forwell Trail.
I suppose that's a pretty quick and easy way to permit some safety... I've always felt that sidewalks, when on big grassy boulevards, should get repaved into MUT's.
RE: Trails - goggolor - 09-15-2017
City of Waterloo just replied to my tweet about missing signs saying "Signs have been installed by @rideIONrt at Erb and Allen St. and painting should be coming in the near future."
RE: Trails - Canard - 09-15-2017
Painting...?!
RE: Trails - Canard - 09-15-2017
One final ride along the Central Promenade, before work begins!
RE: Trails - highlander - 09-18-2017
The Iron Horse Trail info page has an update on the Victoria to Queen construction.
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/IronHorseTrail.asp
Quote:Update: September 18, 2017
The Iron Horse Trail project has been delayed to begin spring 2018. The city was unable to secure a contractor through the procurement process earlier in the summer of 2017, and will re-tender the project in the winter of 2018.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 09-18-2017
(09-18-2017, 11:26 AM)highlander Wrote: The Iron Horse Trail info page has an update on the Victoria to Queen construction.
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/livinginkitchener/IronHorseTrail.asp
Quote:Update: September 18, 2017
The Iron Horse Trail project has been delayed to begin spring 2018. The city was unable to secure a contractor through the procurement process earlier in the summer of 2017, and will re-tender the project in the winter of 2018.
That is unfortunate. *sigh*...it is very easy to lose confidence in governments.
That being said, does anyone have confirmation of what width they planned to pave for the trail?
3 meters is not enough, but that was the planned width at one point. After being repeatedly pared down from the 4-5 meters that seemed to be a rough consensus at the trail consultations I attended.
RE: Trails - tomh009 - 09-18-2017
What's the current width? I would guess 2.5m.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 09-18-2017
(09-18-2017, 01:26 PM)tomh009 Wrote: What's the current width? I would guess 2.5m.
Approximately, it's usually quoted as 2.6 m.
RE: Trails - tomh009 - 09-18-2017
So the new paving might be slightly wider, but only by 40 cm?
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 09-18-2017
(09-18-2017, 01:49 PM)tomh009 Wrote: So the new paving might be slightly wider, but only by 40 cm?
Yes, that was the most recent plan, for which I sent strong objections and have heard nothing since. If they pave it 40 cm wider, I will be extremely disappointed, and it will lead to an increasing amount of animosity between pedestrians and cyclists.
IIRC, the 3 meter width was a paring down of the already too narrow 3.6 meters which the original improvement plan said was the widest width that could be achieved uniformly through the entire corridor (a silly reason to pick that width). The paring down was claimed to save something like 40 trees in the bush, which I don't even buy anyway.
FWIW, all the design guides state 3 meters is the minimum width (with a 2.5 meter exception for very short segments with immovable obstructions like bridges) for a MUT. Given that this is the busiest trail in the city, the "minimum" hardly seems appropriate. The recommended width is 4 meters which is not even on the table.
RE: Trails - tomh009 - 09-18-2017
Why would a 3m-wide trail increase animosity over the current 2.6m-wide trail?
RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 09-18-2017
(09-18-2017, 02:23 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Why would a 3m-wide trail increase animosity over the current 2.6m-wide trail?
I think he means as traffic increases, and compared to a wider trail. Presumably 3.0m will be better than 2.6m, but not by much and the difference is likely to be swallowed by increasing traffic.
Re: the “uniform width” thing, yeah, do these planners actually read what they write? That’s just absurd. Even road projects sometimes give up on widening in certain segments for a substantial period of time — e.g. Weber St. just north of Victoria St. for many years until the recent widening, and Highway 6 through Morriston. An MUT can definitely go wide opportunistically and narrow where needed. This is exactly the kind of utter nonsense that destroys my faith in their professionalism. At this point I barely default to granting planners, as a class, any expert knowledge at all. By contrast, you won’t see me second-guessing an electrician’s choice of wire gauge.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 09-18-2017
(09-18-2017, 03:01 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(09-18-2017, 02:23 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Why would a 3m-wide trail increase animosity over the current 2.6m-wide trail?
I think he means as traffic increases, and compared to a wider trail. Presumably 3.0m will be better than 2.6m, but not by much and the difference is likely to be swallowed by increasing traffic.
Re: the “uniform width” thing, yeah, do these planners actually read what they write? That’s just absurd. Even road projects sometimes give up on widening in certain segments for a substantial period of time — e.g. Weber St. just north of Victoria St. for many years until the recent widening, and Highway 6 through Morriston. An MUT can definitely go wide opportunistically and narrow where needed. This is exactly the kind of utter nonsense that destroys my faith in their professionalism. At this point I barely default to granting planners, as a class, any expert knowledge at all. By contrast, you won’t see me second-guessing an electrician’s choice of wire gauge.
Yes, sorry for not clarifying, I meant the increasing trail volumes will lead to that animosity, the 40 cm increase will do little to mitigate it. Biggest problem being that widening the trail to 3 meters now is an investment in a 3 meter trail for the next 20 years.
Lol, don't let electricians off the hook too easily either. They're also just applying a standard, which may or may not be right. There was a pretty strong argument that I read (that I unfortunately cannot find again) that the OCS for our LRT was very overbuilt, which is both expensive, and unsightly.
But I am sympathetic to the premise. Simply cutting and pasting standards doesn't seem worth of the title engineer. But to be fair few of us here are actually project engineers.
RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 09-18-2017
On the plus side, the trail section (which is still gravel) north of the railway looks like it *could* be >3 meters wide, possibly as much as four. I'm estimating here, and I have no idea how wide the pavement will be when compared with the base layers of aggregate, but there are wooden pegs that are spaced at least that far apart at the edges, so I'm hoping.
RE: Trails - Pheidippides - 09-20-2017
Were the final designs for the central promenade in Waterloo Park ever published? I know they had some public consultation, but I haven't seen the results published on the webpage (waterloo.ca/centralpromenade) or the Engage Waterloo site. How do we know what feedback was incorporated in to the final design?