Trails

[tomh009]

I do like unpaved, and I only have a single (road-oriented) bike with the afore-mentioned 30mm tires. I really love the short trail from Thift on Kent to the IHT; the trail through Menzinger Park; the Filsinger trails; Montgomery Park; Monarch Woods; Steckle Woods; and the currently-unpaved trails along Shoemaker Creek -- whether walking or on my bike. Not to mention the Huron natural area! Less sanitized, one step closer to nature.

Yes, less accessible for, say, a wheelchair or a stroller. But for recreational trails, this is my personal preference.

[dtkvictim]

I think this discussion also highlights that most trails in our city were made for recreation (and IMO are pretty good for that), but the lack of cycling infrastructure and pleasant pedestrian infrastructure forces recreational trails to double as active transportation networks.

We need more options.

[ijmorlan]

Thinking more about this, especially after seeing all the perspectives here, I think I’ve realized a bit more about what it is I don’t like about the signs with detailed surface and grade information.

When we build a road somewhere, it goes without saying that cars will have a good surface and lots of space. But it doesn’t (yet) go without saying that bicyclists will have a good surface and lots of space to get to the same destination. The trails I’m mostly thinking of are an alternative to riding on motor vehicle routes; for example the trails next to the Spur Line on both sides of Uptown Waterloo.

So I think I would revise my preference to say that there should be a network of high-quality bicycle infrastructure that reaches all the same places as the road infrastructure, and which doesn’t need specific per-trail indications or consideration of what standard is used in the design.

Then if there are additional routes that may be steeper, narrow, or paved differently (or not paved), that’s fine too. Additionally, there are enough people who prefer jogging (or riding) on gravel that it makes sense in many places to have a gravel shoulder next to the paved path. Of course, this needs to be a good surface, not the loose-pack unrideable surface one sometimes finds next to roads.

Part of the confusion arises because we have motor vehicle oriented infrastructure and we’re now trying to improve the bicycle infrastructure. The above has fairly obvious consequences when designing a new city: just make sure there are bicycle routes to all road destinations, and then maybe add additional paths as well. But when retrofitting to an existing city, it’s less obvious whether a new path is improving access to existing locations or if it is instead a new recreational trail.

So in practice this may all just go back to the idea of having classes of trail. Also I shouldn’t complain too much about the signs: they’re an indication that somebody is trying.

[bravado]

I think this is a real concern. As a commuter and city cyclist who doesn't do this for "recreation", most of my discomfort during any ride doesn't come from cars, it comes from inconveniencing people who are trying to enjoy nature and moving slower or doing things that don't mesh with my own simple need to get around. Since our trails are almost always recreation-first, I seem to constantly lose in the equation.

Does that mean totally new trails at public expense?

[tomh009]

So I think I would revise my preference to say that there should be a network of high-quality bicycle infrastructure that reaches all the same places as the road infrastructure, and which doesn’t need specific per-trail indications or consideration of what standard is used in the design.

Then if there are additional routes that may be steeper, narrow, or paved differently (or not paved), that’s fine too.

Fully agreed. Active transportation routes vs recreational trails.

The Kitchener cycling grid is a good first step for the first part, and those lanes/trails should clearly be paved and properly maintained.

On the other hand, riding alongside the Grand River in Cambridge is (at least in many parts) recreational rather than intended for active transportation or commuting, and the current trails are great for that.

[dtkvictim]

Joseph Street and Stewart St reconstruction to start soon:

Thank you for subscribing for updates on the road reconstruction taking place on Joseph Street and Stewart Street: Victoria Street South to north end and Park Street East to end.

We are sending this message to let you know that construction begins July 4, 2022. The contractor will prepare the construction site that day. They will then install a temporary watermain during the first week.

I hope we won't be waiting ages on the connection between Joseph and Stewart (or at least that it will be traversable in the meantime).

Photos below for the transit hub trail as of today. Some notes:

1) There is chain link fence or retaining wall boxing you in from both sides for almost the entire length
2) The 90 degree turn at King got a lot of attention, but it's not even the only one. There is another sharp turn on the downhill that takes you parallel to King St. The fence is not installed there yet, so I could have gone flying off
3) I don't recall seeing white paint marking the edge of a trail elsewhere in the region, and it even seems used to steer you around light posts that are on the paved surface.

[danbrotherston]

They have done the edge line on the spur line trail. In a lot of ways it is absurd, basically road engineers assuming they are building a road and not understanding a trail but give the poor design, 90 turns and posts and walls maybe it’s justified here.

[dtkvictim]

The flexible bollards used on the cycling grid have begun to appear elsewhere. Pictured is between the IHT and Victoria Park playground. While cars have actually driven though here before, personally I find them a little annoying in this context.

[tomh009]

Why annoying? Because we shouldn't need them?

Sadly, we do need them ...

[plam]

Why annoying? Because we shouldn't need them?

Sadly, we do need them ...

Because they make life worse for me when I have to get to them. Sprawl... kind of self-reinforcing.

[dtkvictim]

Why annoying? Because we shouldn't need them?

Sadly, we do need them ...

I'm not convinced we need them in this location, but the city would have a better idea about that than me I guess.

It's really not a big deal if it actually improves safety, it's just an obstacle to navigate around that I didn't feel was needed, and makes it a bit tighter for biking, large families, and strollers.

[danbrotherston]

Why annoying? Because we shouldn't need them?

Sadly, we do need them ...

I'm not convinced we need them in this location, but the city would have a better idea about that than me I guess.

It's really not a big deal if it actually improves safety, it's just an obstacle to navigate around that I didn't feel was needed, and makes it a bit tighter for biking, large families, and strollers.

Yeah, they definitely pose a minor hazard to cyclists and require you to slow down a bit more than you would. I have rarely seen illegal vehicles on this section, but I'm not going to argue much against this kind of thing...I'll just take the W.

[KingandWeber]

I'm not convinced we need them in this location, but the city would have a better idea about that than me I guess.

It's really not a big deal if it actually improves safety, it's just an obstacle to navigate around that I didn't feel was needed, and makes it a bit tighter for biking, large families, and strollers.

Yeah, they definitely pose a minor hazard to cyclists and require you to slow down a bit more than you would. I have rarely seen illegal vehicles on this section, but I'm not going to argue much against this kind of thing...I'll just take the W.

Can't speak for the second photo, but I personally have witnessed multiple cars drive onto the area in the first photo (one I remember made it all the way to Queen!) on the IHT. Don't underestimate driver stupidity.

[ac3r]

Why annoying? Because we shouldn't need them?

Sadly, we do need them ...

I'm not convinced we need them in this location, but the city would have a better idea about that than me I guess.

But if we didn't have them and a car drove down there (as they have), the cyclist brigade would cause a ruckus. I don't see anything wrong with a couple flexible bollards that help inform people. Cyclists ought to be slowing down as they approach a crossing anyway so the signs shouldn't be a problem. If someone crashes into them then that's their own fault.

[cherrypark]

Works for me! Much rather the flexiposts than the giant metal chicanes that make it impossible to pass through with a cargo bike or trailer (or maintain any speed at all / force a dismount).