09-12-2018, 09:15 AM
(09-12-2018, 07:44 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: Long-awaited cycling link to go ahead this fall
"Designers went back to the drawing board, and came up with a compromise: the trail will be three metres wide for most of its length between Carwood Avenue near the Kaufman Family YMCA and Hayward Avenue. But beneath the highway underpass, the path will move further from the creek to avoid the need for the pricey retaining wall, and squeeze into the space between the streetside guard rails and the heavy concrete columns that support the highway. The compromise means that a stretch of the path will narrow to 1.7-1.9 metres, Parris told the city's cycling and trails advisory committee Tuesday."
Funny how there was no problem "squeezing" in 5 vehicular lanes when it was redone recently. Just like the Weber refuge this would appear to be against standard practice.
"If council awards the tender at its meeting later this month, the work could begin in October and wrap up six weeks later."
So best case scenario, early May?
"Another link in that stretch will link Courtland to the Iron Horse Trail, and is planned to go ahead next spring, but the design is contentious. Residents on Bedford Road and Sydney Street object to losing parking, or having Bedford become a one-way street, and even the cycling committee couldn't agree on a preferred design. The committee did approve a motion to move ahead with way-finding signs so that cyclists emerging from parkland trails know what streets they're on. Members called for the city to spend $50,000 now, rather than wait two more years until an update to the city's cycling master plan comes up with a standard design for cycling signs."
What on earth is on-street parking needed for on those streets? There is no nearby commercial interests. They are all single family homes, most of which can accommodate at least six cars. Why does Bedford have to become one-way? The current road is 8.7m wide and the right of way is 20m wide; plenty of room to fit 2 vehicle lanes and a MUT or 2 cycling lanes + 2 sidewalks.
Some context, as I am a member and was at the meeting.
Yes, if MTO, the region, and the city (and within the city, the transportation and trails department), were all the same thing, this type of thing could and should have been coordinated. As is, from the city's trails department a recently reconstructed road is a fixed thing that cannot change.
This is a reasonable compromise, and far different from Weber St. On Weber St. there were no fixed constraints, the entire right of way was reconstructed, and the choice was made to keep wider lanes and a wider boulevard instead of a safe island. On Courtland, there is no option to reconstruct the bridge or road to make room. It's fine to do the best we can with fixed constraints, although we should always fight to make safety the top priority, but when it comes to a full redesign, when it's substandard for cycling, that should be unacceptable.
Also missing in the article is the fact that designs and long term plans exist for the 1 million or so dollar retaining wall required to place the trail on the other side of the bridge piers.
As for timelines, construction is *supposed* to start this year and be completed this year. I too will be rather surprised if that happens. But given this project was supposed to happen last year, 5 months late is small beans at this point.
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.