Posts: 2,004
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
125
I've been out riding my bike several times this past week and have travelled the Walter Bean Trail from Fairway to RIM Park. The flooding seems to have done quite a number on the trail.
The worst section seemed to be the bit southeast of Kiwanis Park which was almost impassable due to the debris that had been deposited over that section. There is flood damage elsewhere, but nowhere to the same extent.
The section from Victoria north is in surprisingly good shape, but a lot of the finer sediments were washed away, leaving a soft, fine gravel surface peppered with cobbles in a number of places that may quite challenging to ride through. There were also a number of spots that had ended up with washboards that are quite unpleasant to ride over.
The part west of Bingeman's is very muddy in places right now with some ice patches.
The section south from Forwell Road south is in excellent condition. The hill south of Otterbein is an ice sheet at the moment (as is the hill just east of Bingeman's), but that's the only bad spot. It's otherwise dry and smooth.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Posts: 4,478
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
132
Quote:Plans to replace a pedestrian trestle bridge over Henry Sturm Creek had to be put on hold because there wasn't enough money in the budget to cover that. The bridge is inspected every two years and is structurally sound, so will be replaced with a wider bridge at a later date as money becomes available, Parris said.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
I'm actually glad about that, I like the current bridge just as it is!
Posts: 7,757
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
211
The bridge is too narrow, especially as it is at an intersection, and is also an attraction for people to stand on and not move. However, there is an identical parallel bridge next too it, I wish they'd explore simply twinning the span.
Posts: 1,321
Threads: 2
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
42
The current bridge could be widened if they'd remove the pointless narrow-gauge tracks there, they don't really reflect the history of the line anymore than a steam engine does. (I've grumbled about this before)
Posts: 1,196
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
35
"It's really encouraging that the entire Iron Horse Trail will be brought up to standards by the end of 2019"
What does "brought up to standards" mean? Which standards are they?
Posts: 7,757
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
211
(03-21-2018, 11:26 AM)timc Wrote: "It's really encouraging that the entire Iron Horse Trail will be brought up to standards by the end of 2019"
What does "brought up to standards" mean? Which standards are they?
They're probably talking about width, the trail is currently 2.6 meters wide, which is far too narrow for the traffic it carries. The standards say it should be a minimum of 3 meters wide, (still far too narrow for the traffic volumes), and it is planned last I heard, to be widened to 3.6 meters, which is better, but probably still too narrow for current volumes, let alone future growth (remember, this is a 20 year project).
Posts: 10,515
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
332
(03-21-2018, 12:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: (03-21-2018, 11:26 AM)timc Wrote: "It's really encouraging that the entire Iron Horse Trail will be brought up to standards by the end of 2019"
What does "brought up to standards" mean? Which standards are they?
They're probably talking about width, the trail is currently 2.6 meters wide, which is far too narrow for the traffic it carries. The standards say it should be a minimum of 3 meters wide, (still far too narrow for the traffic volumes), and it is planned last I heard, to be widened to 3.6 meters, which is better, but probably still too narrow for current volumes, let alone future growth (remember, this is a 20 year project).
Where can we find the data for the IHT traffic volumes?
Posts: 7,757
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
211
(03-21-2018, 01:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote: (03-21-2018, 12:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: They're probably talking about width, the trail is currently 2.6 meters wide, which is far too narrow for the traffic it carries. The standards say it should be a minimum of 3 meters wide, (still far too narrow for the traffic volumes), and it is planned last I heard, to be widened to 3.6 meters, which is better, but probably still too narrow for current volumes, let alone future growth (remember, this is a 20 year project).
Where can we find the data for the IHT traffic volumes?
There is some data in some city open data portal. I haven't looked it up, I'm going more based on the experience of using it. Basically, on busy weekends, pedestrians crowd the trail so it becomes dangerous/difficult to use on a bike.
If there was separation between bikes and peds it would be fine, but it needs to be wider (like 4.5 meters) to do that.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
How wide is the "New" section by Catalyst? Is that the new standard? If so, that'll be amazing!
Posts: 7,757
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
211
(03-21-2018, 01:36 PM)Canard Wrote: How wide is the "New" section by Catalyst? Is that the new standard? If so, that'll be amazing!
I got the impression it was wider than the rest of the trail was planned to be, but without measuring, I'm just speculating...
Also, I think parts of it feel/are wider because of the taper to the on/off ramps up to Catalyst, which is very well done indeed.
In any case, it will be a huge improvement for the trail, I'm very much looking forward too it.
Posts: 10,515
Threads: 66
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
332
(03-21-2018, 01:24 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: (03-21-2018, 01:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Where can we find the data for the IHT traffic volumes?
There is some data in some city open data portal. I haven't looked it up, I'm going more based on the experience of using it. Basically, on busy weekends, pedestrians crowd the trail so it becomes dangerous/difficult to use on a bike.
If there was separation between bikes and peds it would be fine, but it needs to be wider (like 4.5 meters) to do that.
My weekend experience is mainly for Saturday mornings, for the segment between Victoria Park and Vincenzo's. I haven't felt that part crowded (admittedly I'm walking so that might give me different perspective). Is the crowding worse in the afternoons? Which parts of the trail?
In my experience, in other countries there are many separated paths that are much narrower than 4.5m A quick search got me to the ODOT design guide which says minimum width of 3m for a shared use path and 3.6m for one with separated bicycle and pedestrian lanes (1.8m each). Is the 4.5m an Ontario standard for such a path?
Posts: 7,757
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
211
03-21-2018, 03:05 PM
(03-21-2018, 02:09 PM)tomh009 Wrote: (03-21-2018, 01:24 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: There is some data in some city open data portal. I haven't looked it up, I'm going more based on the experience of using it. Basically, on busy weekends, pedestrians crowd the trail so it becomes dangerous/difficult to use on a bike.
If there was separation between bikes and peds it would be fine, but it needs to be wider (like 4.5 meters) to do that.
My weekend experience is mainly for Saturday mornings, for the segment between Victoria Park and Vincenzo's. I haven't felt that part crowded (admittedly I'm walking so that might give me different perspective). Is the crowding worse in the afternoons? Which parts of the trail?
In my experience, in other countries there are many separated paths that are much narrower than 4.5m A quick search got me to the ODOT design guide which says minimum width of 3m for a shared use path and 3.6m for one with separated bicycle and pedestrian lanes (1.8m each). Is the 4.5m an Ontario standard for such a path?
As for crowding, it's mostly in the afternoon on weekends, when the park is really busy, and the busiest section is between Victoria and Queen (the other sections are probably not too busy). If there's a festival, it will be really really busy.
And again, it's not that it's impossible to use, just that it becomes annoying, and occasionally a little dangerous.
I'm not quoting any standards, my 4.5 meter standard comes from the minimum 1.5 meter sidewalk, plus a 3 meter bi-directional bike path. You could probably make due with a 2.5 meter bike path, given there are no curbs, for a 4 meter total width, but 1.8 seems far too narrow for a bidirectional facility.
But I don't think standards in this part of the world have really been developed for this type of infrastructure. The Dutch no doubt have some pretty well supported standards.
|
