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. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 2.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trails
(09-21-2017, 02:36 PM)timc Wrote: Are MUTs are cheaper to build? For the most part, it seems like MUTs are just wide sidewalks paved with asphalt.

Cheaper to build, more expensive to maintain is my (uninformed) guess.
Reply
Maintenance is certainly more expensive - asphalt has a far shorter lifespan than concrete.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
There was an idea floating around on Twitter recently that suggested Seagram would make a great woonerf.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
(09-21-2017, 08:42 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: There was an idea floating around on Twitter recently that suggested Seagram would make a great woonerf.

Right now it is one in effect and it doesn’t work well. Of course it’s not supposed to be one so drivers aren’t expecting pedestrians on the road.

More seriously, I don’t think a pure transportation corridor like Seagram would make sense as a woonerf. I tend to associate woonerfs with destinations, not thoroughfares. I think some of the roads on campus (probably all but Ring Road, actually) would work well as woonerfs, which wouldn’t actually be all that different from how they are already.
Reply
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(09-21-2017, 12:10 PM)Canard Wrote: Meanwhile, in Cambridge, the trail along the river by Riverside Park had new pavement:

[Image: dkr4V3U.jpg]


Is this on the North side of the 401 or the south side?
Reply
South - this is in Riverside park, between the park itself and the boardwalk section.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
For anyone else who might be cycle-commuting through Waterloo Park regularly, the Active Transportation PM for City of Waterloo is posting daily updates on his Twitter:

Reply
More for the "Walking in Waterloo Region" thread, no, or do I misunderstand how the bridge is to be used?
Reply
I'll move it. Thanks!
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
New report on IHT to Hub trail with same recommendation.

I would encourage anyone with an interest in seeing alternative 1 or 1A realized to contact your regional councillor before Tuesday and at least have them insert an addendum to the motion that his a defined timeline.

i.e.
Instead of:
Direct staff to pursue planning opportunities in the future to realize the Alternative 1/1A and Alternative 2 alignments as properties in the vicinity are redeveloped.

Do this instead:
Direct staff to report back annually on the pursuit of planning opportunities in the future and  to realize the Alternative 1/1A and Alternative 2 alignments as properties in the vicinity are redeveloped within 5 years.

Also, for alternative 1/1A why is the AirBoss property considered a potential full property taking? It looks like a 5m right of way and a 3m trail would fit between the CN right of way and the building. It seems odd that they are willing to bend over backwards to make the staff recommendation "work," but similar obstacles for other alternatives are deemed impossible situations.

Finally, can someone remind me why the MUT is on the north side of Waverly and not the south? That introduces an unnecessary additional crossing at the tricky curve at Gage/Waverly. Fewer property owners to deal with for expropriation?
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
(09-30-2017, 07:58 AM)Pheidippides Wrote:
New report on IHT to Hub trail with same recommendation.

I would encourage anyone with an interest in seeing alternative 1 or 1A realized to contact your regional councillor before Tuesday and at least have them insert an addendum to the motion that his a defined timeline.

i.e.
Instead of:
Direct staff to pursue planning opportunities in the future to realize the Alternative 1/1A and Alternative 2 alignments as properties in the vicinity are redeveloped.

Do this instead:
Direct staff to report back annually on the pursuit of planning opportunities in the future and  to realize the Alternative 1/1A and Alternative 2 alignments as properties in the vicinity are redeveloped within 5 years.

Also, for alternative 1/1A why is the AirBoss property considered a potential full property taking? It looks like a 5m right of way and a 3m trail would fit between the CN right of way and the building. It seems odd that they are willing to bend over backwards to make the staff recommendation "work," but similar obstacles for other alternatives are deemed impossible situations.

Finally, can someone remind me why the MUT is on the north side of Waverly and not the south? That introduces an unnecessary additional crossing at the tricky curve at Gage/Waverly. Fewer property owners to deal with for expropriation?

Re Waverly:  Fewer property owners yes, but also, the region would not build a MUT where there are driveways.

The thing about Waverly is that I suspect there is sufficient ROW to build the trail without property taking or grading, if they were willing to remove the 8 parking spaces, of course, they're not willing to do so even though there is parking lot at the end of Waverly.

Re 1/1A:  This is a non starter, I don't think the region will ever build it, or if they do we're talking multiple decades.  There are buildings which staff feel are in the way, and the region will never choose to demolish a building to build a trail, which leaves us with waiting till they're redeveloped.

2 should happen as soon as the property at the end of Stewart gets developed, although frankly, I think it could be accomplished without that as well.

Staff make these claims about required property takings, and I want to trust them, but looking at Stewart it is plainly obvious it is possible cross the railway with only taking a small slice of the property, which makes me want to question their other claims.

Regarding the railway underpass, I still find it an unacceptable restriction.   Yes, it technically meets the requirements in the OTM Book 18, but staff continue to disregard the requirement for more width when facing a vertical obstruction like a bridge abutment.

Given they've basically decided this is the only route forward, and it will happen, there are three options they *should* consider.

1)  Narrow the vehicle lane.  Why should cyclists and pedestrians be the ones squeezed so.  The vehicle lane could be undersized (and by that I mean, less than the nearly meters, which is a ridiculous standard anyway).

2)  Make it at grade, and mark it off with lines/flex poles/whatever to pretend like you're not narrowing the vehicle lane.

3)  A very short contraflow bike lane along the bridge to let southbound cyclists legally on the roadway against traffic (again given the enormous nearly 5 meter wide paved area, there plenty of room for this), which would make the narrow path somewhat more acceptable.

Park St. for some reason has the same 5 meter wide lanes, and yet they are moving hydro poles to place the path in the current boulevard.  I don't get it.

I like your direction though.  I would advocate for supporting such an amendment.
Reply
In other news, the Lexington segregated bike infra is going in now.  It looks quite good, and includes a sidewalk as well as the bike path, which makes it the first true bike path in the region (well, ignoring the one that was removed on Westmount Rd.).  I will be curious to see the finished design.

It looks like it will be a bike only path for a while then merge in with the sidewalk some time after the bridge.  I assume this is to accommodate road cyclists who wouldn't ride on a pedestrian path, since the merge point also appears to include a curb cut for cyclists to escape the path.

One question however, would be why the region continues its obsession with placing curbs in the middle of bike infra.  The picture below shows the point just after the bridge where there is a curb placed in the middle of the bike path, not at a transition point, but in the middle, there is nothing going on here, except the bridge ending.  Why would there be a curb there?!  They would never build a road that way.

   
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)