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) 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 - danbrotherston - 09-12-2018 (09-12-2018, 07:44 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: Long-awaited cycling link to go ahead this fall Some context, as I am a member and was at the meeting. Yes, if MTO, the region, and the city (and within the city, the transportation and trails department), were all the same thing, this type of thing could and should have been coordinated. As is, from the city's trails department a recently reconstructed road is a fixed thing that cannot change. This is a reasonable compromise, and far different from Weber St. On Weber St. there were no fixed constraints, the entire right of way was reconstructed, and the choice was made to keep wider lanes and a wider boulevard instead of a safe island. On Courtland, there is no option to reconstruct the bridge or road to make room. It's fine to do the best we can with fixed constraints, although we should always fight to make safety the top priority, but when it comes to a full redesign, when it's substandard for cycling, that should be unacceptable. Also missing in the article is the fact that designs and long term plans exist for the 1 million or so dollar retaining wall required to place the trail on the other side of the bridge piers. As for timelines, construction is *supposed* to start this year and be completed this year. I too will be rather surprised if that happens. But given this project was supposed to happen last year, 5 months late is small beans at this point. The other item is slightly misreported. The committee unanimously supported the design for Bedford that involves removing around 1/2 of the 88 parking spaces which saw maximum utilization of 3 spaces by the 14 homes on the street, all of which have long driveways (no sidewalks) and space for minimum 3 cars outside. It's utterly ridiculous for them to complain about parking. So there was no contention there, only question was about what type of protection was provided. The other street, Sydney, there was much more discussion. The question was substandard trail, or sharrows. Removing parking was never even considered, since staff feel the road is still too narrow. Some members felt that the road was quiet enough that a substandard trail wasn't needed, others felt that a continuous trail was important for the IHT. RE: Trails - tomh009 - 09-12-2018 Thanks, that sounds like a reasonable discussion. (And a HUGE number of parking spaces on Bedford Rd!) I can see the Sydney-Bedford-Courtland connection. But where is the IHT connecting from its terminus on Ottawa to Sydney? RE: Trails - jamincan - 09-12-2018 There is a bike-route along Nyberg south of Ottawa. RE: Trails - tomh009 - 09-12-2018 (09-12-2018, 12:04 PM)jamincan Wrote: There is a bike-route along Nyberg south of Ottawa. Ah! Having walked IHT to Ottawa St S many times, I had never yet noticed that. I'll have to look for it next time. RE: Trails - KevinL - 09-12-2018 (09-12-2018, 12:10 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(09-12-2018, 12:04 PM)jamincan Wrote: There is a bike-route along Nyberg south of Ottawa. Better signposting is needed, clearly. RE: Trails - Pheidippides - 09-12-2018 (09-12-2018, 09:15 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The other street, Sydney, there was much more discussion. The question was substandard trail, or sharrows. Removing parking was never even considered, since staff feel the road is still too narrow. Some members felt that the road was quiet enough that a substandard trail wasn't needed, others felt that a continuous trail was important for the IHT. Thanks for all additional background and clarifications. Interesting that staff think the road is too narrow when street calming measures (curb bump outs and speed hump) had to be added to Sydney. I get the the city has a budget and that is a limitation, and I can understand that they are trying to make sure everyone is heard. So if they have to keep the parking on Sydney to justify removal on Bedford I kind of get. Too much, too soon causes a public backlash which kills momentum for future projects. But why does it have to be an either/or choice? Why can't it be both? Again, the right-of-way is 20m wide. Everything fits if that is a choice: This may be my new favourite website of the moment (although I can't seem to find a way to add a MUT): https://streetmix.net/ RE: Trails - Spokes - 09-13-2018 I thought I heard that there was a lot of opposition to the Sydney St work. That looks fantastic! RE: Trails - Viewfromthe42 - 09-13-2018 The above drawing is not actually an option, Spokes. That would require more work, rebuild, and narrower lanes (drivers want large lanes but slow cars, even though they don't realize the two are opposed). RE: Trails - tomh009 - 09-13-2018 (09-13-2018, 01:39 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The above drawing is not actually an option, Spokes. That would require more work, rebuild, and narrower lanes (drivers want large lanes but slow cars, even though they don't realize the two are opposed). I think that would be a complete rework of the entire right-of-way, which would be rather expensive. It's nice to know that there is 20m available, but if we can't rebuild the street itself, then it's not the most important number. RE: Trails - Spokes - 09-13-2018 (09-13-2018, 01:39 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The above drawing is not actually an option, Spokes. That would require more work, rebuild, and narrower lanes (drivers want large lanes but slow cars, even though they don't realize the two are opposed). Oops, I clearly missed that. Too bad, that would fit well there. Funny how they can't realize that. Drive down King St and you figure it out pretty quickly. RE: Trails - Canard - 09-15-2018 WOO! Pavement markings are going down on the Central Promenade, from Seagram to Erb/Caroline! They are a very, very good design. RE: Trails - clasher - 09-15-2018 So does anyone know if there are plans to put bolllards or something at David St. And the IHT? I just had an encounter with a car driving down the trail... guess it looks a lot more like an a laneway or driveway at the end of David. There’s not even a yellow/black checkboard sign at the end of David so surely there must be plans to do something? RE: Trails - kitborn - 09-16-2018 I saw the markings on the promenade yesterday and wondered what they were for. One blue dot means bicycles only and 2 means pedestrians only. All three means mixed. RE: Trails - KevinL - 09-16-2018 They'll be adding the appropriate white icons to them, naturally. RE: Trails - kitborn - 09-17-2018 I recently rode my bike in the Stanley Park Conservation Area of Kitchener and was impressed with the tranquility of the area. The forest is lush and has a very woodsy scent. |