Waterloo Region Connected
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)



RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 08-16-2017

(08-16-2017, 08:10 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-15-2017, 10:24 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Cherry St. is not ideal for the trail.  There isn't room for a MUT (without losing a lane anyway), it's got about the biggest hill of any route, and it's much busier than you'd think (despite the no truck sign, plenty of trucks use it when they realize that they cannot pass under the railway bridge).  Crossing Park St. at Cherry also has some visibility issues with the bridge.  Worst of all, they just rebuilt the trail access at the end with zero cycling provisions (not so much as a curb cut).

This is probably why they went with a hybrid, strong opposition to Cherry, but being unwilling to risk having the route shut down by railway opposition.

I also disagree with the "long term" idea, I agree in principle, but I have serious doubts about a willingness to fix things in the future, and worse a bad solution now, which gets little use, merely provides evidence for those who wish to shut down improvements.

That being said, I don't think any of these routes were bad enough to be worth not building on that account.

Thanks for the clarification on Cherry St. I didn’t realize it was steep or busy. Google maps isn’t a topographical map!

By “long-term” I don’t mean in the by-and-by, I mean that the properties in question are ripe for redevelopment and the trail could be built one block at a time as things happen in the next few years. Also, if a strip of land from the adjacent property is used, rather than part of the railway right-of-way, I don’t see how the railway would be involved.

Regardless of all of this, having a trail on the east side of the branch line all the way down to where it meets up with the Iron Horse trail would be helpful for anybody coming from the south. It’s not just about linking the Iron Horse to the transit hub but also about improving the network.

FYI:  https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/maps/bJl-be4Nwrg

Google maps does have a terrain map, not quite topographical, but interesting.

It doesn't have the resolution to show the hill much, it is not really that Cherry has a big hill, just, much bigger than any other route (or at least, less gradual).

And yeah, the traffic mainly comes from living there, I'm frustrated by the number of trucks down my "no trucks" street.  The "no trucks" sign routinely has truck tire tracks running over it, no jokes.  Again, it's not terribly busy, just worse than the other options, and moreover, combined with the hill, not great.  FWIW, neighbourhood children generally ride on the sidewalk there.

As for a trail along the railway, I think everyone, including staff, agree that it is the "right" option, just not feasible in the given timeframe for this project.  Whether they will be less likely to pursue it in the long term with this trail being built, I don't really know.  Not sure what you mean by the "east" side though?  (I'm still thinking about Waterloo directions) . The north side definitely has a building conflict.  South side would incur another railway crossing.  It's a tough trade off.


RE: Trails - Viewfromthe42 - 08-16-2017

Two things I wonder if we could do at trail/road crossings. I don't necessarily like the idea of a signalized crossing, as I'd expect that you'd never get that in a usable way. You'd likely wait far longer than if you'd merely wait for gaps. Maybe a pedestrian crossing-style pushbutton like near fairview park mall? But most importantly by use of only paint and signage: could we put a no-stopping area at and near the crossing? In Toronto, many intersections have that in them, to get cars to not get stuck in an intersection they can't get through, blocking cross-traffic when the signal changes. There are actually good pauses in at least one direction of traffic at places like Union and Weber, but the cars often block any direct path, and even if they leave a tiny gap, it's hard to look right for the other direction's oncoming traffic. It shouldn't be out of the goodness of a driver's heart that, when they are stopped southbound on Weber, they don't block access to the new island, it should be very explicitly drawn for them.

Second weirder infrastructure idea: trail crossing roundabouts. Cars obviously couldn't use them as anything but straight-throughs, but the idea would be to have a small central area, enough to slow down drivers just a bit, but legally speaking, if I'm heading south on the Spur Line Trail and can find a gap to get into the circle after westbound Union traffic opens, the eastbound Union traffic *MUST* yield to me to let me finish my crossing. You could conceivably do it with just signs and paint, but I think I'd want it to be more obvious, and force drivers to slow down a bit more.


RE: Trails - Markster - 08-16-2017

Progress at Laurel Trail and Weber:


As for the Transit Hub "trail", my impression is that they're doing the literal path of least resistance.
They're taking the easy half of two of their proposals, and stapling them together via Park St, and calling it done.
(One being the Waverly-CherryPark-Stewart route, the other being the Spur Line south to Victoria Park)
Unfortunately, in this case, 50% + 50% does not equal 100%.

I can see some merit in this. It begins construction on 50% of two worthwhile paths. But the killer is that thanks to the half-measure, getting political will to finish either routeproperly will become an uphill battle fighting against the "Oh but we already finished the trail" excuse. We will be stuck with a circuitous, difficult to navigate trail for 10 years at least, very likely longer.


RE: Trails - Markster - 08-16-2017

(08-16-2017, 09:39 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Two things I wonder if we could do at trail/road crossings. I don't necessarily like the idea of a signalized crossing, as I'd expect that you'd never get that in a usable way. You'd likely wait far longer than if you'd merely wait for gaps. Maybe a pedestrian crossing-style pushbutton like near fairview park mall?

Personally, I want one of these at every single trail crossing in the region:
   

I hate the idea of full traffic lights.


RE: Trails - timc - 08-16-2017

(08-16-2017, 09:51 AM)Markster Wrote: Personally, I want one of these at every single trail crossing in the region:

I hate the idea of full traffic lights.

I like this, but there must be some reason we have done away with all of this style of crossing in the region.


RE: Trails - Viewfromthe42 - 08-16-2017

They added it in by Fairview Park Mall in the last year or so.


RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 08-16-2017

(08-16-2017, 09:22 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: As for a trail along the railway, I think everyone, including staff, agree that it is the "right" option, just not feasible in the given timeframe for this project.  Whether they will be less likely to pursue it in the long term with this trail being built, I don't really know.  Not sure what you mean by the "east" side though?  (I'm still thinking about Waterloo directions) . The north side definitely has a building conflict.  South side would incur another railway crossing.  It's a tough trade off.

Thanks for the response.

Yes, directions are a problem, even more so for this particular situation. My ultimate proposal would be two paths. At the transit hub, they would be on both sides of the main line. The north side path would run parallel to the main line over to the Iron Horse trail. This is the one that passes through empty lots and properties that are up for redevelopment, including the massive project at King and the tracks. The south side path would run next to the branch line on what could at various points be reasonably considered the south, east, or north side, since it curves from being more or less north-south (Waterloo directions) or west-east (Kitchener directions) to matching up with the main line. This path is now proposed for construction by the city as far as Park St., but I would continue it down to where the branch line crosses the Iron Horse trail. Neither of my proposed paths would cross any rail track.

Does that explain what I mean?


RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 08-16-2017

(08-16-2017, 11:47 AM)timc Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 09:51 AM)Markster Wrote: Personally, I want one of these at every single trail crossing in the region:

I hate the idea of full traffic lights.

I like this, but there must be some reason we have done away with all of this style of crossing in the region.

There doesn’t have to be a good reason.

But having said that, these crossings have some sort of weird legal history I don’t understand. I remember them from Toronto growing up, and also in Ottawa, but in recent years I have mentioned things like this to planners and got answers about new legislation authorizing new types of pedestrian crossings. Then when I saw the details of the new legislation, it turned out what it allowed was essentially what had always existed, just being a bit more specific about what the signage should look like. I was left completely confused as to what the planners were trying to say, and frankly somewhat suspicious of their expertise.

On top of that, the new legislation has two types of pedestrian crossovers, both of which are essentially what always existed, just with two different levels of signage. So it’s very confusing.


RE: Trails - timc - 08-16-2017

(08-16-2017, 11:57 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: They added it in by Fairview Park Mall in the last year or so.

Yes, there is one on Kingsway, although I didn't think it was new. I lived in that neighbourhood about 20 years ago and I thought there was one there then.

But most of the ones in the region have disappeared. Some have been replaced with pedestrian signals. With the updated laws, will we see more of the crossovers with overhead lights?


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 08-16-2017

(08-16-2017, 01:56 PM)timc Wrote:
(08-16-2017, 11:57 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: They added it in by Fairview Park Mall in the last year or so.

Yes, there is one on Kingsway, although I didn't think it was new. I lived in that neighbourhood about 20 years ago and I thought there was one there then.

But most of the ones in the region have disappeared. Some have been replaced with pedestrian signals. With the updated laws, will we see more of the crossovers with overhead lights?

It is a shame they're replaced with pedestrian signals, which are quantitatively worse for everyone.  Of course, I'm guessing the reason is that drivers did not reliably obey the crossover signals.


RE: Trails - Pheidippides - 08-16-2017

Does anyone know if there are plans to move the traffic signal in front of St John's school on Strange to the Waverley/Strange crossing and if a new light will be added at the Park crossing of this trail? If so are they considering making them cross-rides like at Erb and Peppler?


RE: Trails - danbrotherston - 08-16-2017

(08-16-2017, 10:32 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Does anyone know if there are plans to move the traffic signal in front of St John's school on Strange to the Waverley/Strange crossing and if a new light will be added at the Park crossing of this trail? If so are they considering making them cross-rides like at Erb and Peppler?

I am hoping the Planning & Works committee agenda reports will specify this.  They come out on Friday at 4:30 Smile


RE: Trails - MacBerry - 08-17-2017

(08-15-2017, 09:30 PM)bpoland Wrote: Was there a problem taking Stewart St from Park to the railway tracks?

Those parcels of land are too valuable for future developers and new high rise buildings. City doesn't want to deal with complaining developers IMO. The other issue is that there may be a liability issue where people need to cross the Goderich-Exeter RR Line near Joseph Street. 

It should go right down the CN Rail line with a separation fence. That route would require too many land agreements or expropriations.


RE: Trails - Pheidippides - 08-17-2017

I actually thought the number of property owners for running a trail straight along the north side of the CN/GWR/GEXR line from the IHT to the hub is pretty small; 4 I think.:
Catalyst137,
Airboss,
the parking lot owner,
and MetroLinx.

If you try and do it along the south side is something like 15 owners, much more built up, and more difficult terrain/grading.

Despite their new +1,000 space parking lot Catalyst137 is making a connection to the IHT so they seem open to supporting active transportation and would only need to sever a small swath.

The parking lot parcel would require minimal preparation, no demolition, little grading. So mostly the costs of a 5m silver along the edge of the property.

The MetroLinx siding is only temporary until the Shirley facility is up and and they support active transportation (e.g. funding the spurline trail). They could just give up the land in kind. The land is already graded; only the siding tracks would need to come out.

So really it would come down to Airboss. How much does their little siding actually get used? Even if they still use it there is no reason a simple crossing could not be put in like the new one near Victoria Park.

This really does seem to be the path of least resistance. I really hope what some said earlier about current proposed trail becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy of "well we built it and no one uses it so we aren't going to try building another trail!"


RE: Trails - ijmorlan - 08-17-2017

(08-17-2017, 09:55 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: I actually thought the number of property owners for running a trail straight along the north side of the CN/GWR/GEXR line from the IHT to the hub is pretty small; 4 I think.:
Catalyst137,
Airboss,
the parking lot owner,
and MetroLinx.

If you try and do it along the south side is something like 15 owners, much more built up, and more difficult terrain/grading.

Despite their new +1,000 space parking lot Catalyst137 is making a connection to the IHT so they seem open to supporting active transportation and would only need to sever a small swath.

The parking lot parcel would require minimal preparation, no demolition, little grading. So mostly the costs of a 5m silver along the edge of the property.

The MetroLinx siding is only temporary until the Shirley facility is up and and they support active transportation (e.g. funding the spurline trail). They could just give up the land in kind. The land is already graded; only the siding tracks would need to come out.

So really it would come down to Airboss. How much does their little siding actually get used? Even if they still use it there is no reason a simple crossing could not be put in like the new one near Victoria Park.

This really does seem to be the path of least resistance. I really hope what some said earlier about current proposed trail becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy of "well we built it and no one uses it so we aren't going to try building another trail!"

That’s what I was thinking. Thanks for working it out in more detail — in particular I wasn’t as clear on how the property ownership worked west of Strange. In addition to what you say, partial trail implementation would be useful. For example, if Metrolinx gives up the land currently occupied by the northernmost siding, you get a trail from Park St. Then add in the bit through the parking lot to get to Strange. Then people can use Gage/St. John’s field to deal with the gap until a plan for getting the trail through the Airboss property can be found.

Also, if it comes down to it, we shouldn’t be afraid to expropriate. If the region or city needed a 5m strip of Airboss’ property to widen a road, there would be no question of not doing it just because they don’t like it. So frankly I don’t care whether Airboss wants a trail running between their factory and the railroad: it should happen regardless. The only real problem I see is that I’m not sure where the boundary is between their property and the railroad right-of-way. If the path actually needs to occupy some of the railroad right-of-way then we’re into that difficult discussion.