Trails

[rangersfan]

biked the Kolb Greenway trail today and it is very nice there is also a trail all along Rothsay Ave.

With a little imagination at Ottawa St, you can almost bike completely on trails from Chicopee Park in a large arc all the way over to Otterbein rd.

[jamincan]

You can actually almost do a complete loop on trails using a combination of the Walter Bean Trail, Dom Cardillo Trail and Kolb Greenway Trail save for a few short on-street connections.

[rangersfan]

It's great to see these connections coming together.

[Canard]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Thanks, <a href="https://twitter.com/RegionWaterloo">@RegionWaterloo</a>, for making my commute to Cambridge basically impossible. PS, it's 2017. Cc: <a href="https://twitter.com/WRConnected">@WRConnected</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/TriTAG">@TriTAG</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/bikeWR?src=hash">#bikeWR</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wrpoli?src=hash">#wrpoli</a> <a href="https://t.co/RIWxXI85lv">pic.twitter.com/RIWxXI85lv</a></p>&mdash; iain (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/861209032748662785">May 7, 2017</a></blockquote>

[MidTowner]

Hopefully this wasn't posted elsewhere, but in case anyone missed it, the City of Waterloo has posted a survey on the Union Street crossing of the Spur Line Trail. Find it here.

There's an information meeting on the 18th. Hopefully some improvement comes of this. There are a number of responses already and, as can be imagined, generally people are not pleased with the current situation.

[jamincan]

Following on Canard's post, I think this points to a larger problem with the way active transportation is treated in the Region. There does seem to be a general willingness to provide accommodation for it, when there is some space available. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be an understanding that people might actually want to go somewhere. Trails end suddenly and reappear in disconnected places, bike lanes appear and disappear at random, and signage is often scarce.

This lack of attention to networks is particularly notable with construction. Sawmill Road has wide shoulders south of Conestogo that are great for cyclists. They are completely and needlessly blocked by signs warning cars of construction on several occasions forcing cyclists to merge in and out of traffic suddenly. No detour for cyclists is signed despite there being a very reasonable one and this being a popular cycling route. Canard's example above is particularly egregious since that part of the trail has been closed for well over a year now and there is a very reasonable detour available.

We need to have active transportation corridors established in the region. Key routes that are upgraded to provide people with safe routes to and from key parts of the city. Any disruption to these key parts of the network should then be accommodated - signage warning people far in advance of detours and closures (since they're a lot more disruptive to people on foot or bikes than cars), and attention paid to make active modes safe and comfortable throughout construction, especially when it is a long-term project. Too much of our active transportation network seems like an afterthought rather than a well-planned system

[Elmira Guy]

With regards to MidTowners above post...

Improvements coming to Spurline, Iron Horse trails this fall

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/kitch...-1.4115350

[clasher]

Sad to see they stuck with the 3.6m width in the busiest section of the Iron Horse between Queen and Victoria.

[danbrotherston]

Sad to see they stuck with the 3.6m width in the busiest section of the Iron Horse between Queen and Victoria.

Umm...maybe.  The article says 3.6 meters, and the iron horse trail improvement plan says 3.6 meters, but the actual construction plan for this summer said 3.0 meters at the last public consultation.  I sent a rather strongly worded response to this, but I haven't heard if that has changed.

3.6 meters is undersized enough, 3.0 meters would be unacceptably narrow.

[MidTowner]

Lighting on the Spur Line between Roger and Moore will be nice. But...it's technically closed overnight, right? And, if the lighting is sporadic, it's not as useful.

However, it could help visibility of users to motorists around Len's Mill near sunrise or set.

[danbrotherston]

Lighting on the Spur Line between Roger and Moore will be nice. But...it's technically closed overnight, right? And, if the lighting is sporadic, it's not as useful.

However, it could help visibility of users to motorists around Len's Mill near sunrise or set.

Definitely, although I'm under the impression they're already planned to, and budgeted for building out that section of the trail (with lighting), just waiting for them to get around to building it.

I'm also interested in bike lanes on the hugely overbuilt Union St. where there is room for bike lanes without moving any curbs IMO.

Sadly, I think as is usual for government projects, this is a very focused, on only the union crossing.  I just hope they account for bike lanes in the design of the crossing.

[timc]

Isn't it technically closed overnight until July 2017? And then who knows what happens.

[Canard]

I have a feeling those dated signs suggest that they're going to "upgrade" the rail line...

...ie, the Waterloo Park treatment. Huge trenches, fences, and bye-bye trees.

[Pheidippides]

Having filled out the Spurline crossing at Union survey I am a little disappointed in the survey questions.
 
The response categories are biased, and are not mutually-exclusive.
 
For example, take the question, “When crossing Union, how safe do you feel as a trail user?” the options are:
“I cross at the nearest signalized intersection”
“Very safe”
“Somewhat safe”
“Not safe”
“I do not use the Spurline trail at this location”
 
The first and last categories do not fit with the middle three categories. A more typical Likert scale, either a 3 (safe, neutral (neither safe or unsafe), unsafe), 4 (very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe), or 5 (very safe, somewhat safe, neutral (neither safe or unsafe), somewhat unsafe, very unsafe) should have been used.
 
As a result, there are an unequal number of positive (“Very safe”, “somewhat safe”) and negative response categories (“Not safe”).
 
Someone selecting the first response option could be thinking, “I cross at the nearest signalized intersection…because I do not feel safe,” but they could also be answering, “I feel safe because…I cross at the nearest signalized intersection” or “I cross at the nearest signalized intersection …because it is faster etc.” You just don’t know what the respondent was thinking at the time.
 
Similarly, someone selecting the last response option could be answering “I do not use the Spurline trail at this location…because I do not feel safe” but they could be answering “I do not use the Spurline trail at this location because it takes too long” or “It is not applicable to me - I do not use the Spurline trail at this location because I don’t use the Spurline trail.” Again, you just don’t know what the respondent was thinking at the time.
 
The second question is only moderately better because it removes the first category and makes it clear that the last category is for non-applicable respondents, but the response categories are still skewed to the positive.
 
So, when staff summarize the data the bias toward the positive response categories could influence a decision. I can easily imagine the staff report stating that, “only 37% of trail users and 17.8% road users did not feel safe so we can defer this work for another time.”
 
Finally, the survey asks about the safety of the crossing, but it does not ask about the convenience of the crossing being a reason for enhancing the crossing (there is an free text/open ended question for other comments and concerns). So 54.3 per cent of respondents feel safe at the intersection (47.8 + 6.5), but maybe 90 per cent of trail users are frustrated with the amount of time it takes to cross union and 80% of road users are frustrated in the delays caused by the current crossing design and they won’t know because they did not specifically ask.
 
   
   

[Canard]

Sounds like they used the same technique to rig this just as they did with the technology selection matrix back in the mid-2000's for Rapid Transit.