+- 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 - ookpik - 01-10-2016
They wouldn't even need to expropriate. Easements would accomplish the same effect at lower cost. And the land owners would get to keep their land.
Incidentally the cities should at least have first dibs on buying easements whenever this sort of land changes hands. That way the existing owner gets some compensation and the new buyer is under no illusion of what to expect.
RE: Trails - jamincan - 01-10-2016
Wow, that is astonishing. I always thought it was a travesty that we don't have a continuous trail system along the Grand River through Waterloo Region, but I had no idea that so much money had already been raised to accomplish just that.
RE: Trails - ookpik - 01-10-2016
Usually politicians and bureaucrats dismiss proposals to expand trails and paths on the basis that there's insufficient demand and/or insufficient funds. This time we "showed them the money." How often does that happen? (Imagine trying to get car drivers to dig directly into their own pockets to pay for road expansion rather than the usual whining about involuntary tax hikes imposed on them for that purpose.)
And yet, despite the efforts of Letson et al, the politicians and bureaucrats continue to drag their heels. I find that astonishing. Also the relative silence from all those who put up the $6M in the first place. I didn't live in K-W during the 1990s so I didn't donate. But if I had I'd be furious today.
RE: Trails - Canard - 01-10-2016
(01-10-2016, 10:43 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: They should expropriate. Sound harsh? That’s what they would do for a highway; it wouldn’t even be a discussion. Non-motor-vehicle traffic remains a second-class citizen.
...because a trail moves less than 1/100th of the volume? (1/1000th? 1/10000th?) The cost-per-expropriation-per-trail-user would be orders of magnitude higher than if it were for a highway.
RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 01-11-2016
(01-10-2016, 10:11 PM)Canard Wrote:(01-10-2016, 10:43 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: They should expropriate. Sound harsh? That’s what they would do for a highway; it wouldn’t even be a discussion. Non-motor-vehicle traffic remains a second-class citizen.
...because a trail moves less than 1/100th of the volume? (1/1000th? 1/10000th?) The cost-per-expropriation-per-trail-user would be orders of magnitude higher than if it were for a highway.
Nonsense. First, a complete trail would attract more users than the incomplete trail. I don’t know actual numbers in this particular case, but some trails attract significant traffic. Second, the amount of expropriation required would be tiny — maybe a corridor 6m wide. On top of which, as was pointed out by another commenter, an easement might be sufficient.
We’re not talking about a pet project of some nutter here. This is a project which, even in a political environment in which motor vehicle construction and traffic is still privileged, has managed to attract political interest, millions of dollars in donations, and a significant fraction of the needed construction. The point is that a route has been selected, funds raised, and politicians have said that it should be built. If it were a road, it most likely would have been, and concerns of existing property owners on the route would have been sidelined.
Heh, unless by “volume” you mean the actual physical volume of the traffic. That might be less by a factor of 100. My car is probably several hundred cubic feet. I by contrast am maybe a couple of cubic feet. Taking into account trucks, you wouldn’t need to have much traffic on a road to have 100 times the “volume” of traffic of a typical bicycle trail.
RE: Trails - ookpik - 01-11-2016
(01-11-2016, 07:29 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Nonsense. First, a complete trail would attract more users than the incomplete trail. I don’t know actual numbers in this particular case, but some trails attract significant traffic. Second, the amount of expropriation required would be tiny — maybe a corridor 6m wide. On top of which, as was pointed out by another commenter, an easement might be sufficient.
We’re not talking about a pet project of some nutter here. This is a project which, even in a political environment in which motor vehicle construction and traffic is still privileged, has managed to attract political interest, millions of dollars in donations, and a significant fraction of the needed construction. The point is that a route has been selected, funds raised, and politicians have said that it should be built. If it were a road, it most likely would have been, and concerns of existing property owners on the route would have been sidelined.
Hear! Hear!
P.S. I wonder how Canard would feel about expropriating/easmenting[?] a strip of land to complete a rail line under similar circumstances, i.e. broad public approval, $millions raised, political interest, media coverage, etc. Just asking
RE: Trails - kps - 01-11-2016
Start with one small gap, and divert the trail over the river, as a boardwalk on posts a foot or two from the shore. Naturally this will need a good 8 or 10 foot fence on the shore side to keep trail uses from straying onto the nearby private property.
RE: Trails - Canard - 01-11-2016
Oh I'm all for rapid transit. I just think it's silly to ask someone to give up their house so a walking trail doesn't have a kink in it. It's detrimental to the efficiency of vehicles traveling 50+ Km/h to weave, but who cares if you have to walk around a bump or a curve or whatever? I go on trails to go for a walk and enjoy the outdoors anyway, so the longer the better.
And to throw it back your way: I wonder how you'd feel about having to give up your backyard to a trail? Your nice quiet backyard fronting onto a river now bisected by a path which sees thousands of people walking through your backyard each day? Who pays for the loss of value of those properties?
RE: Trails - ookpik - 01-11-2016
(01-11-2016, 02:52 PM)Canard Wrote: I just think it's silly to ask someone to give up their house so a walking trail doesn't have a kink in it.Who's asking anyone to "give up their house?" All that's required is access to a narrow strip for pedestrians and cyclists to pass, most likely at the very back of the property along the Grand River.
Quote:who cares if you have to walk around a bump or a curve or whatever? I go on trails to go for a walk and enjoy the outdoors anyway, so the longer the better.WADR I suggest you look at the disjointed stretches of Walter Bean Trail, especially in Kitchener, and the extent of detours to go around them.
Incidentally according to http://www.walterbeantrail.ca/images/WalterBeanTrail_Map.pdf the trail is complete within the boundaries of Waterloo. Perhaps that's not surprising since this is the shortest segment. There are two major stretches in Kitchener that are yet to be completed. And of course the stretch from RIM Park to Kissing Bridge Trail through Woolwich township remains in limbo.
RE: Trails - nms - 01-13-2016
On a related note, after a few surprises, the City of Waterloo learned to stake its trails early on the west side. About 15 years ago when the land was developed, the trails weren't put in yet. After people lived in their houses, and in some cases, landscaped their yards, the City arrived with their survey stakes to identify the trail easement that ran between the houses and the woodlot. If you ever see a plastic four by four pillar with a City of Waterloo logo, you're likely looking at a place where they City had to stake its claim.
RE: Trails - Smore - 01-13-2016
I thought the Spur line was lit now, but when I drove by tonight only the portion that I passed between Weber and Breithaupt was lit while Weber to Roger was dark...
RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 01-13-2016
(01-13-2016, 07:48 PM)Smore Wrote: I thought the Spur line was lit now, but when I drove by tonight only the portion that I passed between Weber and Breithaupt was lit while Weber to Roger was dark...
It was, but a night or two ago I noticed the lights were out again. I’m not sure what I think. The lighting is extremely bright, to the extent that one cannot see the light from the train (from my vantage point across the street). It seems like overkill. On the other hand, I can see the value of having the path lit for people using it. I think I would prefer to see “pedestrian scale” lighting that really only lights the area close to the ground, and to an extent that it still feels like night time. But right now there is again no lighting.
RE: Trails - MacBerry - 01-13-2016
(01-13-2016, 09:44 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(01-13-2016, 07:48 PM)Smore Wrote: I thought the Spur line was lit now, but when I drove by tonight only the portion that I passed between Weber and Breithaupt was lit while Weber to Roger was dark...
It was, but a night or two ago I noticed the lights were out again. I’m not sure what I think. The lighting is extremely bright, to the extent that one cannot see the light from the train (from my vantage point across the street). It seems like overkill. On the other hand, I can see the value of having the path lit for people using it. I think I would prefer to see “pedestrian scale” lighting that really only lights the area close to the ground, and to an extent that it still feels like night time. But right now there is again no lighting.
From a personal safety point of view I would rather see the lighting as it is being set up, light that pushes back the boundary edge of the trail so there are no unexpected places where persons with some what "nefarious" character could linger. If you want people to use the trails you can't be fighting a local unnamed newspaper that will claim person attacks and safety were never fully considered.
RE: Trails - zanate - 01-14-2016
I don't know if the on-and-off-again problem is being caused by this, but theft has continued to be a problem. Talked to an electrician working along a section near Guelph St. last week and he's said that there have been repeated thefts of conduit. The only defense, he said, was to get the circuit live.
Wondering if even that's enough now.
Same electrician claimed that the original theft this summer (which I heard was ~4km of conduit) was worth $70K to the contractor, and the scrap value was something like $25K. And that one section had been hit three times now.
RE: Trails - ookpik - 01-14-2016
Anyone know why they chose to use AC-powered lighting in the first place? I'd have thought self-powered, solar-charged LEDs would do the job at lower cost, less maintenance and reduced risk of theft due to minimal amount of copper wiring. Perhaps they went with AC because LED lighting might have to be dimmer due to solar panel technology.