06-23-2021, 09:58 PM
(06-23-2021, 08:04 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(06-23-2021, 10:12 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Most sections of the IHT have space as well...while some places might need trees removed, like through Vic Park, there are lots of trees in that area. Other sections already lost all the trees to make it wider, or there is enough space to widen anyway, since the train was double tracked. And we aren't talking about a huge amount of width...it only needs to be 5 meters for a comfortable space for all.
For the laurel trail, even where it squeezes past CCGG there is easily an extra meter of space that could be used closer to the tracks, given the position of the track heater.
As the person that prompted the earlier discussion on this forum about cycling through a crowded Victoria Park, and as a person that routinely complains about the lack of greenery in our city: The earlier comment you made about providing alternative routes is far better than what you're suggesting here. I'd personally much rather deal with the crowding than lose any trees along the IHT (even in the places where there are "lots of trees"). Also keep in mind that for large stretches of the IHT the trees are only 1 or 2 trees deep, so removing them means no more trees.
For me, nearly 100% of the trips I make on the IHT would be faster if I felt that the alternative routes were safe enough, so I'd rather focus on making that improvement. So yes, the trails will always be a mixture of transportation and leisure, but there are better options than widening (at least for now) that will reduce the conflict caused by overcrowding.
I am not opposed to other options.
But just like widening the trail, for those, we are largely screaming into the void...the city/region is unwilling to do either.
What really irks me is that the trails were just rebuilt (all three Laurel, Spur, and IHT). And all were rebuilt to an insufficient standard. We would never do this for roads. We are spending tens of millions to widen Highland Rd. on the presumption that traffic will continue to increase unabated for the next 20 years, and at that point, there could be congestion. But when we rebuild a trail, we don't even build it for the traffic we see today. Quite honestly, I think any busy MUT should segregate peds and cyclists, it's really just a comfort thing, it makes it more pleasant to use for everyone. And like I said, it really isn't a significant difference in cost or trees. MUTs really only work well when they are sparsely used.
And while I absolutely think trees are important, I also note that there are other things which impact people's enjoyment of the trail, specifically, there is significant conflict on the trail between users. People complain constantly about cyclists (and cyclists are also inconvenienced). This absolutely affects people's enjoyment of the trail. How many trees that is worth is both an impossible to answer question, and a personal one. But like I said, I think treecover would be largely similar on a widened trail.
(I would also add that there are not really direct alternatives to the Laurel trail through the park).