10-26-2016, 08:53 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2016, 08:53 AM by danbrotherston.)
(10-26-2016, 07:16 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: There were two proposed paths for the bridge over the creek near Henry Sturm greenway; apparently it needs to be replaced regardless of which route is picked.
Sadly I couldn't stay late enough to talk to anyone, but I was curious as to if they had to replace the bridge. This is disappointing to say the least. I now have serious concerns about this bridge.
Quote:The proposed new connection to Victoria Park looks pretty good, as does the new wayfinding signage.
The proposed changes to the existing connection to Victoria Park looks pretty good too.
Indeed, although I need to ask if they are fixing drainage in this area, it has some pretty serious flooding issues.
Quote:The proposed change to the crossing at Victoria/West is uninspiring.
Very much so, but they are limited by the region. Of course, if the city and region worked together, we might get a better change. As is, I'm not sure if the city is trying to force the region's hand by building the trail the way it is. Either way, it could be far better. Colour me disappointed.
Quote:A lot of people were complaining about the loss of vegetation along the route between Gage and Glasgow, but that was out of scope last night.
...
I'm not surprised, as soon as I saw all that vegetation come out, I knew it would be an issue. Which makes it all the more frustrating that they aren't widening the trail more in order to avoid taking out trees...you know, in the area where there are so many trees that it wouldn't be noticed.
Quote:Further to that, the city could do a better job of marking off their work areas and cleaning up after themselves. I used that section last week knowing full well and being prepared that I may have to detour around for the intermittent and temporary closures along that stretch, but when I got to Gage there was no sign indicating closure or detour so I kept going.
...
Funny, I've usually had good luck with city staff on the trail, they've tried to be accommodating. These might not be city workers though.
Oddly enough, it's actually WRPS who've been problematic on the trail for me, I once had to walk through a muddy ditch to go around a police van, but I can understand the need for police investigations. What I cannot understand is the need for two police cruisers to park beside each other blocking the entire trail ROW, while the officers discuss whatever.
My take on the public consultation, which I will have to follow up with after I contact the staff.
1. West/Victoria - disappointing, highlights structural issues in our government.
2. Connection with westward trail is much improved.
3. Queen needs a wider pedestrian island, there's no reason for it to be so narrow that you cannot fit a bike with trailer on it.
But my biggest issues are more general.
First, 3 meters is too narrow, especially for that section. It is already quite a busy trail, and this is a 20 year project, think of how busy this trail will be in 20 years. Cyclist and pedestrian conflict was already the second most common complaint (after crossings). 3 meters is the provincial minimum to be used when there's hard restrictions on ROW, 4 is preferred. 3.6 was identified in the original study--which I already thought was pushing it on narrowness. They said the reason is that they would lose too many trees, but this is in a thicket, nobody will notice if a few trees out of 1000 go away. They're already including a 1-2 meter buffer, just pave the buffer.
But this leads to my biggest objection. The original improvement plan did a great job of highlighting the dual nature of the trail, it serves as a recreational facility for many people who enjoy walking or sitting on the trail, as well as a major transportation corridor for many people. This public consultation and improvements seem to focus exclusively on the park aspect to the exclusion of the transportation aspect. This is why the trail isn't wide enough, this is why the questions were about community gardens, and park features, this is why seating on (not beside, but on) the trail is proposed in one design, this is why an example render has people sitting on (again on, not beside) the trail.