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
Absolutely love that one! There’s bonus ducks up there too, they rebuilt a storm pond and naturalized it and now it’s filled with fine feathered friends. Big Grin
Reply


I grew up riding around there and loved that area.

And yes, lots of ducks!
Reply
Horray! The pavement markings are now complete through the new Central Promenade in Waterloo Park!

   

   

And!!!! I also  Heart the pedestrian routing just South of the bridges Big Grin

   

Sadly even with all of this I still had to point directly at the signs, and then at the pavement markings, and then say "Hey guys, over there please" and point to the other lane at two oncoming joggers... who's response doesn't dignify repeating here.  People...
Reply
Wow. Very very nice.

Obviously it'll take time for people to adjust, but they don't have to be an ass in their response. Sad.
Reply
(09-15-2018, 02:55 PM)clasher Wrote: So does anyone know if there are plans to put bolllards or something at David St. And the IHT? I just had an encounter with a car driving down the trail... guess it looks a lot more like an a laneway or driveway at the end of David. There’s not even a yellow/black checkboard sign at the end of David so surely there must be plans to do something?

I have encountered cars on the stretch myself on at least two occasions.

There are supposed to be 8 permanent bollards and 2 removable ones installed there, but it hasn't happened yet.
   

I haven't actually noticed anyone working on that project (other than right in Victoria Park) for weeks.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
(09-18-2018, 09:56 PM)Pheidippides Wrote:
(09-15-2018, 02:55 PM)clasher Wrote: So does anyone know if there are plans to put bolllards or something at David St. And the IHT? I just had an encounter with a car driving down the trail... guess it looks a lot more like an a laneway or driveway at the end of David. There’s not even a yellow/black checkboard sign at the end of David so surely there must be plans to do something?

I have encountered cars on the stretch myself on at least two occasions.

There are supposed to be 8 permanent bollards and 2 removable ones installed there, but it hasn't happened yet.


I haven't actually noticed anyone working on that project (other than right in Victoria Park) for weeks.

We got an update on this at ATAC.  Staff reported they were on track to hit an October 31 date for total completion.  They are waiting on benches to ship right now.  Maybe that includes the bollards too.
Reply
(09-12-2018, 09:15 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The other item is slightly misreported. The committee unanimously supported the design for Bedford that involves removing around 1/2 of the 88 parking spaces which saw maximum utilization of 3 spaces by the 14 homes on the street, all of which have long driveways (no sidewalks) and space for minimum 3 cars outside.  It's utterly ridiculous for them to complain about parking.  So there was no contention there, only question was about what type of protection was provided.

The other street, Sydney, there was much more discussion.  The question was substandard trail, or sharrows.  Removing parking was never even considered, since staff feel the road is still too narrow.  Some members felt that the road was quiet enough that a substandard trail wasn't needed, others felt that a continuous trail was important for the IHT.

A front-page story in today's Record. Residents think building a separated bike trail is overkill and a waste of money. (If the traffic volume of 95 cars per day in the article is correct they may have a point.) I didn't spot any parking complaints in the article.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/892...dents-say/

Would a painted bicycle lane be sufficient for a street such as Bedford? Would either two lanes or a single two-way lane fit on the existing street without major reconstruction (while keeping two-way car traffic but not on-street parking)?
Reply


(09-24-2018, 10:15 AM)tomh009 Wrote: A front-page story in today's Record. Residents think building a separated bike trail is overkill and a waste of money. (If the traffic volume of 95 cars per day in the article is correct they may have a point.) I didn't spot any parking complaints in the article.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/892...dents-say/

Would a painted bicycle lane be sufficient for a street such as Bedford? Would either two lanes or a single two-way lane fit on the existing street without major reconstruction (while keeping two-way car traffic but not on-street parking)?

My general inclination would be to make Bedford explicitly shared infrastructure. That doesn't work well in places with heavy car traffic, but in a situation like this is seems a reasonable compromise: the residents still get full access to the street and bikes can ride on the street with minimal concern about traffic, and following the train becomes fairly easy. It's one of the few good circumstances I can think of where a bunch of paint on the road could make a difference.

However, in discussing this article with a friend of mine, I came to a personal realization: a MUT or other mechanism to formally include this segment of Bedford into the trail network is also a commitment to maintenance, especially snow-clearing in the winter. It would be quite unpleasant to navigate this section of the trail infrastructure without that commitment, as the very probable outcome is that the street wouldn't get plowed with any degree of priority and it would end up being an icy or slushy mess most of the time, and probably have piles of old snow blocking reasonable trail access anyway.

But with it being explicitly connected to the trail network, there's also an obligation to keep it passable. Whether or not the city does a good job of that is definitely an open question but at least it's explicitly in the books as a trail. Also, a MUT seems like it would be good for the residents since they're going to get sidewalks at some point, and a MUT might be something the city clears for them.

I'm sympathetic to the impact that changing the nature of a neighbourhood has, but given the kinds of changes that are going to come in regardless, being explicitly on the trail network seems like it would have some benefits above and beyond simply getting a sidewalk.
Reply
(09-24-2018, 10:15 AM)tomh009 Wrote:
(09-12-2018, 09:15 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The other item is slightly misreported. The committee unanimously supported the design for Bedford that involves removing around 1/2 of the 88 parking spaces which saw maximum utilization of 3 spaces by the 14 homes on the street, all of which have long driveways (no sidewalks) and space for minimum 3 cars outside.  It's utterly ridiculous for them to complain about parking.  So there was no contention there, only question was about what type of protection was provided.

The other street, Sydney, there was much more discussion.  The question was substandard trail, or sharrows.  Removing parking was never even considered, since staff feel the road is still too narrow.  Some members felt that the road was quiet enough that a substandard trail wasn't needed, others felt that a continuous trail was important for the IHT.

A front-page story in today's Record. Residents think building a separated bike trail is overkill and a waste of money. (If the traffic volume of 95 cars per day in the article is correct they may have a point.) I didn't spot any parking complaints in the article.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/892...dents-say/

Would a painted bicycle lane be sufficient for a street such as Bedford? Would either two lanes or a single two-way lane fit on the existing street without major reconstruction (while keeping two-way car traffic but not on-street parking)?

For it to be a waste of money, you must consider the benefits and costs. There is no sidewalk present, and a painted bike lane would remove all parking, so it really would be about the worst solution. The cost, is as close to zero as makes no difference for a municipal budget, the 80k quoted includes Sydney St. which has paving and such, cost is probably 15-30k.

Just because you didn't spot parking complaints in the article, does not mean that isn't the real issue here.

(09-24-2018, 10:49 AM)robdrimmie Wrote:
(09-24-2018, 10:15 AM)tomh009 Wrote: A front-page story in today's Record. Residents think building a separated bike trail is overkill and a waste of money. (If the traffic volume of 95 cars per day in the article is correct they may have a point.) I didn't spot any parking complaints in the article.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/892...dents-say/

Would a painted bicycle lane be sufficient for a street such as Bedford? Would either two lanes or a single two-way lane fit on the existing street without major reconstruction (while keeping two-way car traffic but not on-street parking)?

My general inclination would be to make Bedford explicitly shared infrastructure. That doesn't work well in places with heavy car traffic, but in a situation like this is seems a reasonable compromise: the residents still get full access to the street and bikes can ride on the street with minimal concern about traffic, and following the train becomes fairly easy. It's one of the few good circumstances I can think of where a bunch of paint on the road could make a difference.

However, in discussing this article with a friend of mine, I came to a personal realization: a MUT or other mechanism to formally include this segment of Bedford into the trail network is also a commitment to maintenance, especially snow-clearing in the winter. It would be quite unpleasant to navigate this section of the trail infrastructure without that commitment, as the very probable outcome is that the street wouldn't get plowed with any degree of priority and it would end up being an icy or slushy mess most of the time, and probably have piles of old snow blocking reasonable trail access anyway.

But with it being explicitly connected to the trail network, there's also an obligation to keep it passable. Whether or not the city does a good job of that is definitely an open question but at least it's explicitly in the books as a trail. Also, a MUT seems like it would be good for the residents since they're going to get sidewalks at some point, and a MUT might be something the city clears for them.

I'm sympathetic to the impact that changing the nature of a neighbourhood has, but given the kinds of changes that are going to come in regardless, being explicitly on the trail network seems like it would have some benefits above and beyond simply getting a sidewalk.

It is already shared infrastructure, it isn't a reasonable compromise, this is a premier trail in the city, it is intended to be used by many people of all ages, some are simply not comfortable riding on the road, many parents with children feel this way. The road, while quiet, still occasionally has aggressive drivers, I've encountered them before, and the situation with parked cars is bad, because when going around a parked car is the very moment an impatient and aggressive driver will put you in the most peril.

Given that the cost of putting a trail here is as near to free as possible, this is a no brainer. This is a major trail, one that should be continuous.

I have zero sympathy for the residents here, they're either afraid of change of any kind, or they're afraid of losing parking, of which there are 88 spaces for 14 homes, all of which have many outdoor spaces already.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of debating this kind of thing, the cost and impacts are low, its a major trail, we shouldn't even be discussing....pandering....to people terrified of the slightest change.
Reply
Why don't they just run the trail along Schneider Creek through the golf course? The Walter Bean Trail runs through a golf course, I don't see why the IHT couldn't.
Reply
(09-24-2018, 11:51 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: For it to be a waste of money, you must consider the benefits and costs.  There is no sidewalk present, and a painted bike lane would remove all parking, so it really would be about the worst solution.  The cost, is as close to zero as makes no difference for a municipal budget, the 80k quoted includes Sydney St. which has paving and such, cost is probably 15-30k.

In that cost range, the construction is much more reasonable. Is that to get a MUT built, in lieu of a sidewalk?
Reply
(09-24-2018, 11:57 AM)jamincan Wrote: Why don't they just run the trail along Schneider Creek through the golf course? The Walter Bean Trail runs through a golf course, I don't see why the IHT couldn't.

I'd much rather ride through the course than along a residential street, too. I suspect the problem is about land and money.
Reply
It would be easy too given that it's a city owned course.
Reply


Using the golf course's path along the creek seems to be the easiest solution, all that is needed is a curb cut and a bit of paving on Sydney street near the little garage beside the creek and some signage. The existing paths on the golf course seem to only close to a couple holes so they probably aren't very busy except maybe on the weekends? The IHT south of Stirling isn't nearly as busy as parts north of there so maybe waiting for the new Courtland trails to come on line and see what kind of usage develops isn't a terrible idea... I know I'm not the only person that goes west at the end of the IHT and around to Eckhert St or the pedestrian bridge at the end of Carlin ave.
Reply
(09-24-2018, 12:09 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(09-24-2018, 11:51 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: For it to be a waste of money, you must consider the benefits and costs.  There is no sidewalk present, and a painted bike lane would remove all parking, so it really would be about the worst solution.  The cost, is as close to zero as makes no difference for a municipal budget, the 80k quoted includes Sydney St. which has paving and such, cost is probably 15-30k.

In that cost range, the construction is much more reasonable. Is that to get a MUT built, in lieu of a sidewalk?

The construction on Sydney could involve building a MUT on the boulevard--new pavement.

The construction on Bedford would involve paint, and flex posts only, reusing existing pavement only.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 9 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