Trails

[ijmorlan]

Yeah! I thought they were just doing the "Glowing Trail" part, behind the Perimeter Institute... but it looks like it's finally the entire section from Seagram to Erb/Caroline.

The timing is a little frustrating for me, with LRV testing and burn-in happening shortly for ion... but I've got other spots I can watch from.  So I'm fine with this.

You’re right, and I shouldn’t be quite so negative. While I think the staging of construction closures is a huge fail, the final result is going to be great — a bicycle-only highway right next to the LRT, with a pedestrian route parallel to that, from the creek crossing almost to Seagram. I think each part is supposed to be something like 4m wide.

As far as I can tell, however, you will be able to watch from the west side of the LRT. There is a trail starting at Seagram and going all the way down to the creek, although it is lower and lower quality until you get to a scramble-climb up to the track crossing. As far as I know no construction is happening on that side.

Thanks for the photos. As somebody else commented, the clouds in that one photo are especially striking.

[Canard]

I had written my post while you were writing yours; I realize now after looking at the thread, it looks like I was taking a swipe at your opinion; I assure you I wasn't!

I agree, it's a big problem to have such a major connector closed... I guess we can think of it like the Grade Separation.

I'm pretty sure though that access to where you're talking about (I call it the "TPSS Viewing Trail", because that's all it's go good for) will be closed with the construction.

[Canard]

This evening I checked out the Henry Strum Greenway and Monarch Woods Park a little more thoroughly.  Felt my inner downhiller coming out.  

   

   

   

   

[ijmorlan]

I had written my post while you were writing yours; I realize now after looking at the thread, it looks like I was taking a swipe at your opinion; I assure you I wasn't!

I agree, it's a big problem to have such a major connector closed... I guess we can think of it like the Grade Separation.

I'm pretty sure though that access to where you're talking about (I call it the "TPSS Viewing Trail", because that's all it's go good for) will be closed with the construction.

Thanks, and no worries … I need to remember to mention the positive side anyway.

As to that trail, I don’t actually know, but my guess is it will be open from the north end, but the rail crossing will be closed, because it seems they’re closing the entire area all at once rather than staging it. It wouldn’t be that hard to keep open the little bit of trail connecting the rail crossing to the creek bridge to the other rail crossing, allowing the “TPSS Viewing Trail” (they should make that official!) to connect to Father David Bauer for most of the construction period. So if I’m right, it will be closed in that it will be useless for transportation, but open in the sense that you can get in and watch the trains go by and go back out by the same route you got in.

Anybody want to start a pool as to which happens first: trail re-opens, or LRT service begins?

Sorry, feeling a bit gloomy that both will be further delayed. But we’ll see.

[danbrotherston]

Work on the Weber St. crossing for the Laurel trail has begun!

[rangersfan]

Does anyone know if a preferred route has been selected for the trail connecting the IHT to the transit hub?

[Pheidippides]

This report was just sent out to commenters on the IHT to hub trail consultation.

Looks like a hybrid of options 2 and 3.


  DOCS_ADMIN-#2492552-v1-Notication_(PDF)_of_P&W_meeting-Iron_Horse_Trail_to_Transit_Hub_EA_66111.PDF (Size: 156.32 KB / Downloads: 400)

[Canard]

Yikes, that's.... less than ideal. I guess it's not very easy to draw a line between these two points, but that just looks really circuitous. Not that I mind that But others will, I'm sure.

Also misleadingly shows a direct through connection at Victoria/Park/Strange, which doesn't exist!  Signage even expressly prohibits doing what the line on these drawings show.

[Pheidippides]

Agreed. Not ideal; I really hope that putting this in doesn't stop work on finding a more direct route in the future. This should be a short-term/interim solution.

I'm interested to see how they are going to squeeze the trail through the Park St underpass at the GEXR line. Looks like they have about 1.5m sidewalk, 0.5m curb, and 3.5m road width to work with (5.5m total).

[Canard]

Yeah, we were wondering that too. And then it'll have to climb up the embankment to reach the overhead rail line??

[bpoland]

Was there a problem taking Stewart St from Park to the railway tracks?

[ijmorlan]

I figured they should separate the problems of access from the south and from the north.

For great access from the south, just run up the rail line, starting from where it runs more or less parallel to the Iron Horse and continuing right up across Victoria St., past the Park St. subway, up to the junction and then the transit hub. I don’t think you could possibly do better for access to/from the south.

Next, for north access, temporarily connect across Cherry St. I believe it is a low-traffic road that would not be bad to bicycle on; at Park St. link up with the other access. So this would be a simple route that would be half dedicated and half quiet street riding.

In addition, however, make a firm plan to build a route parallel to the main line on the north side. This means acquiring right-of-way next to the rail right-of-way whenever an adjacent property is redeveloped, and encouraging the developers to meet the path, not think of it as a blank wall side yard. There are only a few properties involved: one or two west of Strange, a parking lot from Strange to Park, the OSC property and the new development right at King and the main line.

It’s OK to build something now and also have a long-term plan. This plan would eventually give high-quality links for people no matter which direction they are coming from.

[danbrotherston]

I figured they should separate the problems of access from the south and from the north.

For great access from the south, just run up the rail line, starting from where it runs more or less parallel to the Iron Horse and continuing right up across Victoria St., past the Park St. subway, up to the junction and then the transit hub. I don’t think you could possibly do better for access to/from the south.

Next, for north access, temporarily connect across Cherry St. I believe it is a low-traffic road that would not be bad to bicycle on; at Park St. link up with the other access. So this would be a simple route that would be half dedicated and half quiet street riding.

In addition, however, make a firm plan to build a route parallel to the main line on the north side. This means acquiring right-of-way next to the rail right-of-way whenever an adjacent property is redeveloped, and encouraging the developers to meet the path, not think of it as a blank wall side yard. There are only a few properties involved: one or two west of Strange, a parking lot from Strange to Park, the OSC property and the new development right at King and the main line.

It’s OK to build something now and also have a long-term plan. This plan would eventually give high-quality links for people no matter which direction they are coming from.

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.

[Pheidippides]

I forgot to mention that the part of the unofficial-now-more-official laurel trail between the back of the harmony jewelry store/king street trio to Regina St beside the button factory/spur line tracks was and torn up today. Maybe to make it all one level like they did between the buildings along the tracks?

[ijmorlan]

I figured they should separate the problems of access from the south and from the north.

For great access from the south, just run up the rail line, starting from where it runs more or less parallel to the Iron Horse and continuing right up across Victoria St., past the Park St. subway, up to the junction and then the transit hub. I don’t think you could possibly do better for access to/from the south.

Next, for north access, temporarily connect across Cherry St. I believe it is a low-traffic road that would not be bad to bicycle on; at Park St. link up with the other access. So this would be a simple route that would be half dedicated and half quiet street riding.

In addition, however, make a firm plan to build a route parallel to the main line on the north side. This means acquiring right-of-way next to the rail right-of-way whenever an adjacent property is redeveloped, and encouraging the developers to meet the path, not think of it as a blank wall side yard. There are only a few properties involved: one or two west of Strange, a parking lot from Strange to Park, the OSC property and the new development right at King and the main line.

It’s OK to build something now and also have a long-term plan. This plan would eventually give high-quality links for people no matter which direction they are coming from.

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.