Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 8 Vote(s) - 3.38 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trails
(08-23-2017, 10:18 PM)Smore Wrote: Not sure if this is the right thread, but the seemingly ample space for MUT along north side of Bingemans Crt Dr is most definitely not MUT...sidewalk forming started today and is of a standard width.

There was brief discussion about that over in the Roads thread:
http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/s...8#pid40218

Here was my comment:
(08-01-2017, 02:13 PM)Markster Wrote:
(07-31-2017, 08:17 PM)sevenman Wrote: According to the design and construction report, there are bike lanes proposed for both sides of this new road.

Ugh.
http://guelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/Vict...Report.pdf

Sure enough, it's bike lanes and a regular 1.5m sidewalk on each side.  It would have been much better for cycling if it were no bike lanes, but MUTs on each side.  But I get it, the bike lanes let them have the asphalt width the engineers want, while also checking off the "bike infrastructure" box.

A very big missed opportunity.
Reply


In most contexts I prefer bike lanes over MUTs, as the cycling Lane (should be just bikes) no need to dodge oncoming modes of various technologies traveling on multiple sides of the trail. That said as a commuter cyclists.

In a couple of years when I want to go out cycling recreationally with the kids I will mostly likely prefer an MUT.
Reply
(08-24-2017, 03:33 PM)rangersfan Wrote: In most contexts I prefer bike lanes over MUTs, as the cycling Lane (should be just bikes) no need to dodge oncoming modes of various technologies traveling on multiple sides of the trail. That said as a commuter cyclists.

In a couple of years when I want to go out cycling recreationally with the kids I will mostly likely prefer an MUT.

The sad thing is you only have this preference because of the region's complete inability to build proper intersections.  The dutch have what are effectively MUTs (not really "multi" but basically the same form), where even your most dedicated racing cyclist onr your lightest racing bike would not mind riding.  Yet here, even the region acknowledges that it must build bike lanes AND MUTs because road cyclists won't be caught dead on MUTs.
Reply
Some observations from along the Laurel Trail today:
1)    The new animal enclosure fence is being built in advance of the central promenade upgrades; about 3m east from where it is now.
2)    Other than the new bridge, what exactly is complex about this project that is going to take 6 months to complete? There is no asphalt to rip out. There are no utilities to unearth and replace. The area is already wired for electricity (maybe upgrading that?). Shouldn’t it just be grade and pave?
3)    I only noticed today that the pedestrian beg button on the south side of University at the Laurel Trail is on the wrong (left/west) side of the path. That meant me and my bike trailer were blocking the south-bound users while waiting and then dodging and scrambling to get back to the proper side when the signal finally did change. This is on top of the beg button being too far from the path on the north side of University at the trail.

An observation from the IHT today:
1)    The IHT was unexpectedly closed today between Gage and Glasgow. I saw a lot of people going past the closed sign at Gage because the trail closed sign has been up for weeks essentially crying wolf because in those instances the trail was not actually closed but just narrowed and this time it was actually closed this time. On top of that the closed signage on Glasgow end was placed on the north side of Glasgow in the trail and prevented users from reconnecting to the trail (provided the found their way along the unmarked detour route).
2)    It looks like the Catalyst137 workers ripped out the pavement and raised the trail up a bit to make the difference in elevations between the trail and the property not quite so different.
3)    The trail was reopened by tonight, but it is currently a mixture of loose sand and gravel so be aware of that hazard if you are travelling that stretch.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The <a href="https://twitter.com/IronHorseKW">@IronHorseKW</a> is closed from Gage to Glasgow. Really, this time. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WaterlooRegion?src=hash">#WaterlooRegion</a> <a href="https://t.co/pmMqMaSkN7">pic.twitter.com/pmMqMaSkN7</a></p>&mdash; Michael L. Davenport (@valacosa) <a href="https://twitter.com/valacosa/status/900698981151494147">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>

Was this expected?  I don't recall seeing any signage about this.

EDIT - oops, just saw P.'s post. (I've entirely given up trying to spell your name - sorry!)
Reply
(08-24-2017, 09:06 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Some observations from along the Laurel Trail today:
1)    The new animal enclosure fence is being built in advance of the central promenade upgrades; about 3m east from where it is now.
2)    Other than the new bridge, what exactly is complex about this project that is going to take 6 months to complete? There is no asphalt to rip out. There are no utilities to unearth and replace. The area is already wired for electricity (maybe upgrading that?). Shouldn’t it just be grade and pave?
3)    I only noticed today that the pedestrian beg button on the south side of University at the Laurel Trail is on the wrong (left/west) side of the path. That meant me and my bike trailer were blocking the south-bound users while waiting and then dodging and scrambling to get back to the proper side when the signal finally did change. This is on top of the beg button being too far from the path on the north side of University at the trail.

1) Thus proving that my idea of leaving most of the existing trees in place would have worked fine.

2) And they’re simply closing everything, with no apparent attempt to stage the project as they would for a road project and close minimal sections at one time so as to maintain connectivity for those who need it most — those without the assistance of a motor vehicle.

3) The pedestrian buttons on both sides are in ridiculous locations. They should be placed so that bicyclists can easily hit them by just stopping and reaching out. On the north side there isn’t even pavement in front of the button. Or better yet, have the lights default to green for the trail, with motor vehicles triggering green lights using detectors in the road. Done right, this wouldn’t have to delay most motor traffic at all.

Overall, an excess of incompetence being displayed, almost enough to make me feel a bit better about my chosen profession of creating software systems.
Reply
(08-24-2017, 10:20 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-24-2017, 09:06 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Some observations from along the Laurel Trail today:
1)    The new animal enclosure fence is being built in advance of the central promenade upgrades; about 3m east from where it is now.
2)    Other than the new bridge, what exactly is complex about this project that is going to take 6 months to complete? There is no asphalt to rip out. There are no utilities to unearth and replace. The area is already wired for electricity (maybe upgrading that?). Shouldn’t it just be grade and pave?
3)    I only noticed today that the pedestrian beg button on the south side of University at the Laurel Trail is on the wrong (left/west) side of the path. That meant me and my bike trailer were blocking the south-bound users while waiting and then dodging and scrambling to get back to the proper side when the signal finally did change. This is on top of the beg button being too far from the path on the north side of University at the trail.

1) Thus proving that my idea of leaving most of the existing trees in place would have worked fine.

2) And they’re simply closing everything, with no apparent attempt to stage the project as they would for a road project and close minimal sections at one time so as to maintain connectivity for those who need it most — those without the assistance of a motor vehicle.

3) The pedestrian buttons on both sides are in ridiculous locations. They should be placed so that bicyclists can easily hit them by just stopping and reaching out. On the north side there isn’t even pavement in front of the button. Or better yet, have the lights default to green for the trail, with motor vehicles triggering green lights using detectors in the road. Done right, this wouldn’t have to delay most motor traffic at all.

Overall, an excess of incompetence being displayed, almost enough to make me feel a bit better about my chosen profession of creating software systems.

They have at least provided a (fairly inaccessible) detour route for the work.  But yes, I question how they justify a 6 month closure.

The region can't get ped crossings right, they're not even considering cyclists at these intersections.  The official policy seems to be cyclists aren't allowed to cycle across, zero provisions shall be made for them.  We can't even get flush curbs.
Reply


(08-24-2017, 09:06 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: An observation from the IHT today:
1)    The IHT was unexpectedly closed today between Gage and Glasgow. I saw a lot of people going past the closed sign at Gage because the trail closed sign has been up for weeks essentially crying wolf because in those instances the trail was not actually closed but just narrowed and this time it was actually closed this time. On top of that the closed signage on Glasgow end was placed on the north side of Glasgow in the trail and prevented users from reconnecting to the trail (provided the found their way along the unmarked detour route).
2)    It looks like the Catalyst137 workers ripped out the pavement and raised the trail up a bit to make the difference in elevations between the trail and the property not quite so different.
3)    The trail was reopened by tonight, but it is currently a mixture of loose sand and gravel so be aware of that hazard if you are travelling that stretch.

Lets shame the city on 1) please.  I contacted the trails guy at the city repeatedly about the trail closed sign that was left there after the trail was closed for 1 day.  He repeatedly told me it wasn't an issue, that crews were clearly doing work if the sign was there.  I am just so frustrated.

The Glasgow end markers piss me off too. They did that last time, but at least then they were actually working in the middle of the road, but they could have at least moved the sign to the side.  It's just ridiculous.  How complicated is this.
Reply
(08-24-2017, 10:20 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: 3) The pedestrian buttons on both sides are in ridiculous locations. They should be placed so that bicyclists can easily hit them by just stopping and reaching out. On the north side there isn’t even pavement in front of the button. Or better yet, have the lights default to green for the trail, with motor vehicles triggering green lights using detectors in the road. Done right, this wouldn’t have to delay most motor traffic at all.

Not much of a delay, no, but a big hit in fuel consumption. Every time you ask a vehicle to decelerate and accelerate, you're throwing away energy. Even my hybrid isn't immune, and takes a hit, (just not as much as other vehicles). Yeah, it can recouperate much of the energy from deceleration, and reuse it for acceleration, but there are still losses in the system (that's physics). This is something I think the vast majority of the public don't understand. Driving at a slow, steady speed is the generally the most efficient. Everyone wants to floor it when the light goes green - that mentality has to change.

It would be a neat experiment to try, though... (flipping the priority of the lights). I guess you could argue it'd be the same net effect if it were a stop sign.

Utopia would be those predictive-type devices they have in Europe, where you cycle along and get a green just as you approach.

...But now we're back to prioritizing one mode over another. I'm torn, since I like both driving and cycling. I think I'm annoyed more by stopping as a driver, than as a cyclist.

A better system yet would be cameras everywhere that could evaluate when a clump of one type of user comes along. A hundred kids get out of class, and one car is approaching - car gets a red. One person comes up when 3 busses and 43 cars are going through - vehicles get the priority.

I agree the buttons are in a very poor location, as a cyclist!
Reply
(08-25-2017, 06:15 AM)Canard Wrote:
(08-24-2017, 10:20 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: 3) The pedestrian buttons on both sides are in ridiculous locations. They should be placed so that bicyclists can easily hit them by just stopping and reaching out. On the north side there isn’t even pavement in front of the button. Or better yet, have the lights default to green for the trail, with motor vehicles triggering green lights using detectors in the road. Done right, this wouldn’t have to delay most motor traffic at all.

Not much of a delay, no, but a big hit in fuel consumption. Every time you ask a vehicle to decelerate and accelerate, you're throwing away energy. Even my hybrid isn't immune, and takes a hit, (just not as much as other vehicles). Yeah, it can recouperate much of the energy from deceleration, and reuse it for acceleration, but there are still losses in the system (that's physics). This is something I think the vast majority of the public don't understand. Driving at a slow, steady speed is the generally the most efficient. Everyone wants to floor it when the light goes green - that mentality has to change.

I said done right! Tongue

The speed limit there is 50km/h. It takes about 15s from when the red hand starts to flash to when traffic on University gets a green. 50km/h x 15s = 208m. So eastbound put detectors 208m west of the crossing, which means about 50m east of Seagram (also put detectors right at the crossing so nobody ever gets trapped). Westbound, put the detectors at the Phillip St. intersection and synchronize with the Phillip St. lights. Again, also put detectors right at the crossing, so nobody gets trapped.

Then put the same sort of limits on giving time to motor traffic as is currently done with trail traffic. In low-traffic circumstances, nobody has to wait, and in sufficiently high-traffic circumstances it reduces to the usual system of alternating between the two directions.

Whether both halves of the road go at the same time or if it is treated as two separate crossings is another issue. With the current not very large centre island it might be advisable to keep the two sides together, but I’m not sure.

Of course, to get good things like this you can’t just read manuals and do whatever they say.
Reply
In case you couldn't tell my usual commute was a bit different this week as I was travelling to and from UW regularly along the Laurel Trail, Caroline MUT, and IHT.

Two more observations from my travels:
1)    After riding the Caroline MUT corridor between Allen and Erb twice a day for a week pulling a young child in a bike trailer in the rush hours I can easily say that I feel exponentially safer riding in traffic on Caroline; everything is so much more predictable. That's right, riding in bumper to bumper traffic was safer (and felt safer) than riding on the trail. The first few times I actually got off and walked across the road crossings along the MUT as I am legally required to do, but after getting honked at and told I was taking too long I stopped that practice immediately and started to ride across the crossings carefully but had too many close calls and just started riding in traffic on the rode the rest of the week. Damned if you do...

2)    The curve of the Laurel trail along side east side of the Ion stop in Waterloo Park at Seagram is opposite to what would be useful. It curve to the north east as it reaches Seagram instead of to the north west. WB Seagram Dr to SB Laurel Trail riders would turn at Central Dr and not even use that section of the trail, but the designed curve only benefits those users. EB Seagram Dr to SB Laurel Trail users  (or Laurel Trail users coming from the north crossing Seagram and continuing south) are forced to cycle a tiny bit further and then make a very sharp turn on to gravel often whilst dodging vehicles on Seagram and pedestrians on the trail.

3) On a positive note. That stop sign that was in the middle of the trail on the south side of Seagram on the west side of the Ion stop has been moved to the side sufficiently.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
I think if I am reading the report (page 98) correctly the "glowing" trail portion of the central promenade project is not going forward at this time (sorry Canard, I know you were looking forward to that component!).

Glowing stones trail project
The glowing stones trail project originally contemplated by staff in report IPPW2017-
015, is no longer viable for this tender for reasons such as:
1. The anticipated costs for the glowing stones exceeds the available project budget.

2. The Silver Lake EA project has just commenced. The rehabilitation options for Silver Lake may require use of the Silver Lake Path for construction. That path was one of the primary locations identified for the potential glowing stones option. As a result, it is not prudent to proceed in advance of the EA.

3. Staff require more time to resolve questions about glowing stone products (i.e. safety, durability, long-term maintenance costs; alternative and more advanced technologies).

4. Grant funding for the project presents timelines that require us to proceed with the essential components of the project now. The schedule does not allow us time to conduct fulsome design and consultation work for the glowing stones concept.

As a result of this, approved funding via report IPPW2017-015 of $806,000 ($410,000 from CRF and $396,000 from UPTDV) should be repurposed for use on RFT17-16 as additional funding for project-essential items i.e., lighting and separated pedestrian walkway.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
Just lost all interest entirely in this. Sad

This is like if suddenly they said we were buying Alstom trains for ION. Would immediately move.
Reply


I personally thought the glowing stones, although neat in concept, are not viable in our climate and am somewhat happy that it's not going forward at this time (full disclosure: resident of Kitchener, so no financial skin in the game).

I'd rather neat lighting be placed above ground where it's visible year round rather than in a place where leaves, dirt, and snow would cover it and reduce the impact.
Reply
(08-26-2017, 11:37 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: After riding the Caroline MUT corridor between Allen and Erb twice a day for a week pulling a young child in a bike trailer in the rush hours I can easily say that I feel exponentially safer riding in traffic on Caroline; everything is so much more predictable. That's right, riding in bumper to bumper traffic was safer (and felt safer) than riding on the trail. The first few times I actually got off and walked across the road crossings along the MUT as I am legally required to do, but after getting honked at and told I was taking too long I stopped that practice immediately and started to ride across the crossings carefully but had too many close calls and just started riding in traffic on the rode the rest of the week. Damned if you do...

Completely agree with what you're saying, I just got back from a ride with the kids in the cargo bike and almost got right hooked here. We were going about 7 km/h at the time, so it's not like our speed was the major cause. I made eye contact with the driver as he was about to turn - maybe he was expecting me to dismount and cross... I commented to my wife that if we'd been hit, I'd probably be blamed for riding in a crosswalk. Feels like entrapment to me.

I'm quite comfortable riding in traffic any other time, but try to stick to trails with the kids for less stress, slower speeds and my wife's comfort. MUTs without proper priority at intersections are a failure, not to mention this is too busy a pedestrian area for an MUT.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 10 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links