08-16-2017, 08:10 AM
(08-15-2017, 10:24 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(08-15-2017, 09:43 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: 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.