Trails

[danbrotherston]

Someone has attempted to damage and also to deface the trail counter on the Laurel Trail.  Leaves were shoved into the sensor port, as well, as possibly mud.  I don't know if it is still working or not.  I have seen this a number of times, along with messages of various levels of descriptiveness.

It's frustrating and sad, because these counters are helpful in convincing council to build more trails.  And no doubt that is something the people doing this probably would support.  Sadly, I suspect they are ignorant as to the purpose of the trail counters, and somehow think they're "being tracked".

Maybe some educational information would help, but something tells me, it wouldn't.

   

[danbrotherston]

I walked up to Weber St. on my way in today, just to take a look at the pedestrian crossing island.  I will preface my opinion with the acknowledgement that this makes crossing Weber vastly better than it was, there's really no comparison between hopping curbs, and dodging trucks to try and work across, to having an actual crossing.  This is how it should always have been.

However, I am quite disappointed by the design.  Yes, it is better, but given this is built today, and from scratch, there is no reason it should be as narrow as it is, I am really quite shocked at why they built it so narrow.

   

The transition provides a reasonable curve into the sidewalk, as opposed to a hard corner.

   

The path is not straight across, they do this on purpose, but it just looks sloppy here.  And of course, a trail for bikes, why would we have flush curbs.

   

The main problem is this is incredibly narrow.  A bike will not fit across here, even standing on it as a pedestrian is incredibly uncomfortable because of how close the fast moving traffic is.  People objected to Queen St. because it was too narrow, this appears to be even more narrow, and on a faster bigger road.

   

And for what?  There's a huge curb apron here, you can even see in the distance, the road narrows.  What is the point of making the island so narrow, when there's plenty of space to widen it.  I can do nothing but shake my head.

   

And the connection back onto McKay, reasonable, but kind of narrow looking, I'm guessing they were fitting it between the hydro pole and the property line.  And of course, another curb lip to navigate at an angle away from the direction one is turning.

[tomh009]

The main problem is this is incredibly narrow.  A bike will not fit across here, even standing on it as a pedestrian is incredibly uncomfortable because of how close the fast moving traffic is.  People objected to Queen St. because it was too narrow, this appears to be even more narrow, and on a faster bigger road.

Judging by the car in the photo (at the same distance as the island), I estimate the width of the island at roughly 2m, maybe a bit less.  It's indeed quite narrow, but are many bikes longer than that?

[MidTowner]

A bike is around six feet long. That will be tight.

Imagine pushing a stroller across there, standing there with your kid near ground level maybe a foot from live traffic. Plenty of motorists drive eighty kilometres per hour on Weber. That's just not comfortable.

[tomh009]

OK, so a bike would fit, but be tight. Fair enough.

I do agree that it's excessively narrow, but some previous posters were saying that a bike would not actually fit onto the island.

[danbrotherston]

OK, so a bike would fit, but be tight.  Fair enough.

I do agree that it's excessively narrow, but some previous posters were saying that a bike would not actually fit onto the island.

Many comfort and cruiser bikes are 1.8 meters long, if the pad is actually 2 meters wide, which I'm sure it is not more than, a bike would give you 10 cm on either side, if you're able to judge the exact middle.


I really don't consider that "fitting"....if I have to judge that carefully to get into the middle.  Drivers are never placed in such a situation, as to need to be within a 10 cm space to not risk being killed.

Moreover, forget trying to fit two cyclists, or a cargo bike, or a tandem bike, or a bike with a child trailer, or even a person with a stroller.

Why is it so narrow? Why create such a dangerous situation, for no reason whatsoever.

The region outright refuses to consider lane widths less than 3.35 meters or 3.65 meters at a curb, but for pedestrians, no such concerns.  It's ridiculous to spend this much money and not do it right.

[neonjoe]

I would suspect that the diagonal lineup is so that while crossing you face the vehicles coming towards you while on the island. If it is diagonal you may actually have more than 2m for your bike if angled maybe more like 2.25m?

[Pheidippides]

You don't count the curb width in measuring a vehicle lane width so it should not be counted here either. So you can lop off 20cm on each side (40cm total) of those estimates.

The actual usable width is probably about 1.5 m. (The tactile plates are a standard width of 50cm(?) or 60cm(?) x 2 = 1.0-1.2m + about 1/2 a tactile plate width or 1.25 to 1.50m total).

Where is Markster's tape measure (a la Queen and Charles) when we need it? :-)

I agree that the cross is ever so slightly better than before, but I am getting soooooo tired of the lack of thought that goes into these "improvements." Do it right the first time! No doubt some pedestrians may feel safer crossing here now, but in reality a small curb (and possibly railing) will do little to actually protect them if a vehicle were to hit the island at 70kph.

I think 1.8m for a bike with trailer is an underestimate unless you stand diagonal and block all other users from using the crossing. I think island for the IHT at Queen is about 2.4m and that feels dangerous at times and traffic there is usually limited to about 50kph.

According to the Ontario Traffic Manual, 
"The smallest desirable island is one that has a minimum area of 20 m2. The refuge island area should be wide enough to accommodate a person pushing a stroller or walking a bicycle (with a child trailer attached) or at least 1.8 metres. Larger islands may be required to accommodate other features such as wheelchair ramps, pedestrian storage, cyclists with trailers and traffic signs. In general, the design should consider the requirements of the pedestrians that will be using the facility."

How hard is it to actually think about how people might use these facilities?

[danbrotherston]

I realize, if we'd actually looked closely at the documents describing the design, this could have been caught earlier (although, I never saw these until construction had already been planned, and thus was also too late).  But is it so hard to just expect the region to build something properly.  Why do we have to fight every single time something is planned for it to in any way account for the people who are using it without cars.

I've close to given up on this type of thing.

Thanks for pointing out that there are plenty of standards (although a square area is strange instead of a minimum width), why aren't these being followed?!

   

   

   

[tomh009]

I agree that the cross is ever so slightly better than before, but I am getting soooooo tired of the lack of thought that goes into these "improvements." Do it right the first time! No doubt some pedestrians may feel safer crossing here now, but in reality a small curb (and possibly railing) will do little to actually protect them if a vehicle were to hit the island at 70kph.

What protects pedestrians on a sidewalk if a vehicle hits it at 50 km/h, 70 km/h or 100 km/h?  Exactly the same as for an island.  What would you like, a concrete wall?  Won't someone please think of the children?

According to the Ontario Traffic Manual, 
"The smallest desirable island is one that has a minimum area of 20 m2. The refuge island area should be wide enough to accommodate a person pushing a stroller or walking a bicycle (with a child trailer attached) or at least 1.8 metres."

So it does seem it meets the minimum of the OTM at least.  I agree that it should be wider, but the hyperbole does get to be a bit much at times.

[danbrotherston]

I agree that the cross is ever so slightly better than before, but I am getting soooooo tired of the lack of thought that goes into these "improvements." Do it right the first time! No doubt some pedestrians may feel safer crossing here now, but in reality a small curb (and possibly railing) will do little to actually protect them if a vehicle were to hit the island at 70kph.

What protects pedestrians on a sidewalk if a vehicle hits it at 50 km/h, 70 km/h or 100 km/h?  Exactly the same as for an island.  What would you like, a concrete wall?  Won't someone please think of the children?

According to the Ontario Traffic Manual, 
"The smallest desirable island is one that has a minimum area of 20 m2. The refuge island area should be wide enough to accommodate a person pushing a stroller or walking a bicycle (with a child trailer attached) or at least 1.8 metres."

So it does seem it meets the minimum of the OTM at least.  I agree that it should be wider, but the hyperbole does get to be a bit much at times.

What hyberbole?

As for a sidewalk, there is a boulevard between the sidewalk and the road.  In fact, even the region has acknowledged that a curb faced sidewalk is not preferred, and wouldn't build one if it were possible to avoid.  In this case, it was entirely possible to avoid having such a narrow island.  So why was it build this way?

Curb faced sidewalks are similarly unpleasant, but even curb faced sidewalks don't generally put you within 10 cm of the roadway.

[highlander]

OTM Book 18 has a minimum 2.0m width and recommends a 3.0m width.

   

It certainly is an improvement overall, but frustrating that they chose to keep 3.50m lanes and the minimum island width, rather than working any closer at all towards the recommended width.

[MidTowner]

Maybe the Region should be thinking of children and other vulnerable road users when it designs things like this. I only brought up the stroller because that's my experience, and I can tell you from that perspective that it just won't feel comfortable or safe.

It's too narrow, and you just said you agree. If we all agree, why make fun of others for being a bit more passionate about this than you happen to be?

Edit: Sorry, that was a reply to tomh, others were quicker than I was.

[Canard]

How does the Weber St. refuge compare to Columbia (Laurel Trail) and University (Forwell Trail & Laurel Trail)? Those are the ones I use the most. They don't feel very large.

The IHT one at Queen is very narrow too - I think my tires overhang both sides!

[timc]

I agree that the cross is ever so slightly better than before, but I am getting soooooo tired of the lack of thought that goes into these "improvements." Do it right the first time! No doubt some pedestrians may feel safer crossing here now, but in reality a small curb (and possibly railing) will do little to actually protect them if a vehicle were to hit the island at 70kph.

There will be no railing.

This island takes an impossible crossing and turns it into a very dangerous crossing. If you want to cross safely, you're still probably better crossing at Lincoln.