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 - jamincan - 03-18-2018 I've been out riding my bike several times this past week and have travelled the Walter Bean Trail from Fairway to RIM Park. The flooding seems to have done quite a number on the trail. The worst section seemed to be the bit southeast of Kiwanis Park which was almost impassable due to the debris that had been deposited over that section. There is flood damage elsewhere, but nowhere to the same extent. The section from Victoria north is in surprisingly good shape, but a lot of the finer sediments were washed away, leaving a soft, fine gravel surface peppered with cobbles in a number of places that may quite challenging to ride through. There were also a number of spots that had ended up with washboards that are quite unpleasant to ride over. The part west of Bingeman's is very muddy in places right now with some ice patches. The section south from Forwell Road south is in excellent condition. The hill south of Otterbein is an ice sheet at the moment (as is the hill just east of Bingeman's), but that's the only bad spot. It's otherwise dry and smooth. RE: Trails - Canard - 03-19-2018 Thanks for the update! RE: Trails - Canard - 03-20-2018 https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8341140-iron-horse-trail-to-get-1-7m-upgrade-this-spring/ RE: Trails - KevinL - 03-20-2018 Quote:Plans to replace a pedestrian trestle bridge over Henry Sturm Creek had to be put on hold because there wasn't enough money in the budget to cover that. The bridge is inspected every two years and is structurally sound, so will be replaced with a wider bridge at a later date as money becomes available, Parris said. RE: Trails - Canard - 03-20-2018 I'm actually glad about that, I like the current bridge just as it is! RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 03-20-2018 The bridge is too narrow, especially as it is at an intersection, and is also an attraction for people to stand on and not move. However, there is an identical parallel bridge next too it, I wish they'd explore simply twinning the span. RE: Trails - clasher - 03-21-2018 The current bridge could be widened if they'd remove the pointless narrow-gauge tracks there, they don't really reflect the history of the line anymore than a steam engine does. (I've grumbled about this before) RE: Trails - timc - 03-21-2018 "It's really encouraging that the entire Iron Horse Trail will be brought up to standards by the end of 2019" What does "brought up to standards" mean? Which standards are they? RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 03-21-2018 (03-21-2018, 11:26 AM)timc Wrote: "It's really encouraging that the entire Iron Horse Trail will be brought up to standards by the end of 2019" They're probably talking about width, the trail is currently 2.6 meters wide, which is far too narrow for the traffic it carries. The standards say it should be a minimum of 3 meters wide, (still far too narrow for the traffic volumes), and it is planned last I heard, to be widened to 3.6 meters, which is better, but probably still too narrow for current volumes, let alone future growth (remember, this is a 20 year project). RE: Trails - tomh009 - 03-21-2018 (03-21-2018, 12:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(03-21-2018, 11:26 AM)timc Wrote: "It's really encouraging that the entire Iron Horse Trail will be brought up to standards by the end of 2019" Where can we find the data for the IHT traffic volumes? RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 03-21-2018 (03-21-2018, 01:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(03-21-2018, 12:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: They're probably talking about width, the trail is currently 2.6 meters wide, which is far too narrow for the traffic it carries. The standards say it should be a minimum of 3 meters wide, (still far too narrow for the traffic volumes), and it is planned last I heard, to be widened to 3.6 meters, which is better, but probably still too narrow for current volumes, let alone future growth (remember, this is a 20 year project). There is some data in some city open data portal. I haven't looked it up, I'm going more based on the experience of using it. Basically, on busy weekends, pedestrians crowd the trail so it becomes dangerous/difficult to use on a bike. If there was separation between bikes and peds it would be fine, but it needs to be wider (like 4.5 meters) to do that. RE: Trails - Canard - 03-21-2018 How wide is the "New" section by Catalyst? Is that the new standard? If so, that'll be amazing! RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 03-21-2018 (03-21-2018, 01:36 PM)Canard Wrote: How wide is the "New" section by Catalyst? Is that the new standard? If so, that'll be amazing! I got the impression it was wider than the rest of the trail was planned to be, but without measuring, I'm just speculating... Also, I think parts of it feel/are wider because of the taper to the on/off ramps up to Catalyst, which is very well done indeed. In any case, it will be a huge improvement for the trail, I'm very much looking forward too it. RE: Trails - tomh009 - 03-21-2018 (03-21-2018, 01:24 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(03-21-2018, 01:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Where can we find the data for the IHT traffic volumes? My weekend experience is mainly for Saturday mornings, for the segment between Victoria Park and Vincenzo's. I haven't felt that part crowded (admittedly I'm walking so that might give me different perspective). Is the crowding worse in the afternoons? Which parts of the trail? In my experience, in other countries there are many separated paths that are much narrower than 4.5m A quick search got me to the ODOT design guide which says minimum width of 3m for a shared use path and 3.6m for one with separated bicycle and pedestrian lanes (1.8m each). Is the 4.5m an Ontario standard for such a path? RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 03-21-2018 (03-21-2018, 02:09 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(03-21-2018, 01:24 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: There is some data in some city open data portal. I haven't looked it up, I'm going more based on the experience of using it. Basically, on busy weekends, pedestrians crowd the trail so it becomes dangerous/difficult to use on a bike. As for crowding, it's mostly in the afternoon on weekends, when the park is really busy, and the busiest section is between Victoria and Queen (the other sections are probably not too busy). If there's a festival, it will be really really busy. And again, it's not that it's impossible to use, just that it becomes annoying, and occasionally a little dangerous. I'm not quoting any standards, my 4.5 meter standard comes from the minimum 1.5 meter sidewalk, plus a 3 meter bi-directional bike path. You could probably make due with a 2.5 meter bike path, given there are no curbs, for a 4 meter total width, but 1.8 seems far too narrow for a bidirectional facility. But I don't think standards in this part of the world have really been developed for this type of infrastructure. The Dutch no doubt have some pretty well supported standards. |