10-26-2016, 11:02 AM
(10-26-2016, 09:43 AM)clasher Wrote: I went to the consultation. I wrote wherever I could that the trail needs to be wider and that they should be lighting the trail now instead of later. I suggested the new bridge be made as wide as possible so people can look over the creek without impeding traffic... many people like to stop there it seems.
The bridge deck was set on fire a couple years ago and it's all wooden so if it's old I'm not surprised it's at the end of its life.
I really don't understand why people are so attached to the scrub brush around the trail. I liked both the ideas for the Henry Strum green space. The designs also showed them paving the path that runs along the creek toward Vic Park but there was such a crowd around the engineer types that I didn't feel like waiting to ask if that was in the plan.
A wide bridge is a good point, it is a choke point even today. Up in Waterloo the park planning group suggested doubling the bridge, one for cycling--mainly transportation, the other one for leisurely walking and looking. A very good idea I thought.
The bridge was set on fire, but there doesn't seem to be major structural issues with it, and there are two trestle bridges beside each other, I thought only one was damaged by fire. Plus, these are heavy duty train bridges mean to carry massive locomotives weighing many many tonnes. Their use now isn't even remotely similar. I'd be surprised if there was a legitimate structural reason for replacing them. I can see a legislative/liability reason.
I'm pretty sure the plan was to pave a path up the creek towards the park, or at least it's connecting two paved paths, so I'm assuming paved, but there is a path in the plan for sure.
If you have questions though, definitely email the staff members involved, they should be responsive.