07-03-2016, 11:53 PM
(07-03-2016, 11:23 PM)timc Wrote:(07-03-2016, 10:25 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The multi-use trail along Caroline has been started, this is looking south from William. Unfortunately they are finishing it in concrete instead of asphalt, which makes it look like a big sidewalk. I hope some signage will be provided to make clear it is actually a MUT.
Is it really a MUT? And if so, what is it that makes a multi-use trail a multi-use trail?
Edit: I just haven't seen any MUT's around that weren't asphalt. I think concrete is a nicer material. Although I don't like the joints, I think it weathers nicer than asphalt. But if a wide sidewalk of any material can be considered a multi-use trail, and many people ride their bicycles on the sidewalk, the definition of what is a MUT becomes a philosophical question.
It is a MUT in that the region requested that a MUT be built, as MJB pointed out, the one on Weber is also a "MUT" by the same definition. Of course, the lack of any signage whatsoever, and the entirely sidewalk oriented design makes it even worse than the average MUT in the region. I've gotten dirty looks from pedestrians I pass and I see far more cyclists on the road than on the trail. I'd argue its a complete failure in terms of cycling infrastructure at this point.
I doubt this will suffer from the same problem, given that its more well known that this is a trail (mainly because it was before). But the region needs to do a far far better job designing MUTs.
Of course, there are also some examples of the reverse, sidewalks paved entirely in asphalt which imply that they might be MUTs, but I'm really not sure. It's almost as if simply using a different paving material isn't a good way to mark infrastructure.