Trails

[Acitta]

When I am on the MUT on Homer Watson where there are hardly any pedestrians, then I go 30kmh. When I am on the IHT when it is crowded with pedestrians, I try to stay under 20. My heavier e-bike could do real damage if I were to hit a child.

So in other words, the infrastructure is not appropriate. Bicycles should be able to go at cruising speed on the main trails. This implies wider trails with separate bicycle and pedestrian lanes. The trails often cut across the street network so road-adjacent routes are not a substitute.

I don't think that there is enough room to widen the IHT and the Laurel Trail. The IHT was already just widened. I don't think that we want to remove the trees that make the trail pleasant to be on just to make it wider. It is a shared trail with pedestrians and cyclists mixed, and I don't see it as possible to separate them.

[ijmorlan]

So in other words, the infrastructure is not appropriate. Bicycles should be able to go at cruising speed on the main trails. This implies wider trails with separate bicycle and pedestrian lanes. The trails often cut across the street network so road-adjacent routes are not a substitute.

I don't think that there is enough room to widen the IHT and the Laurel Trail. The IHT was already just widened. I don't think that we want to remove the trees that make the trail pleasant to be on just to make it wider. It is a shared trail with pedestrians and cyclists mixed, and I don't see it as possible to separate them.

I’m not sure about the IHT, but you raise a good point about trees. A wide trail with no vegetation just wouldn’t be the same.

I don’t understand how you can say the Laurel Trail can’t be widened. To the contrary, there is tons of space to widen it, except for the little bit where it squeezes between the LRT tracks and the CCGG; even there it could be slightly widened by paving the last bits of available space (I’m assuming the twinned section doesn’t need to be widened).

[danbrotherston]

I don't think that there is enough room to widen the IHT and the Laurel Trail. The IHT was already just widened. I don't think that we want to remove the trees that make the trail pleasant to be on just to make it wider. It is a shared trail with pedestrians and cyclists mixed, and I don't see it as possible to separate them.

I’m not sure about the IHT, but you raise a good point about trees. A wide trail with no vegetation just wouldn’t be the same.

I don’t understand how you can say the Laurel Trail can’t be widened. To the contrary, there is tons of space to widen it, except for the little bit where it squeezes between the LRT tracks and the CCGG; even there it could be slightly widened by paving the last bits of available space (I’m assuming the twinned section doesn’t need to be widened).

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.

[dtkvictim]

I’m not sure about the IHT, but you raise a good point about trees. A wide trail with no vegetation just wouldn’t be the same.

I don’t understand how you can say the Laurel Trail can’t be widened. To the contrary, there is tons of space to widen it, except for the little bit where it squeezes between the LRT tracks and the CCGG; even there it could be slightly widened by paving the last bits of available space (I’m assuming the twinned section doesn’t need to be widened).

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.

[danbrotherston]

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).

[nms]

Great discussion everyone. I should mention that my recent forays down the Laurel Trail and Iron Horse Trail include my two-year-old daughter on a crossbar bike seat. Since she has easy access to the bell, everyone knows that we're coming. We are also usually travelling this section just above walking speed with just enough forward motion to stay upright.

[plam]

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.

Indeed, a MUT is a compromise and not a very good one. In some places Montreal had separated bicycle/walk infrastructure (not the sidewalk) 30 years ago!

[danbrotherston]

[timc]

[danbrotherston]

[dtkvictim]

I can sort of understand... Conflict between trails users, visibility for buses, and not stopping on the train tracks. But what frustrating design.

[danbrotherston]

I can sort of understand... Conflict between trails users, visibility for buses, and not stopping on the train tracks. But what frustrating design.

I'm confused...how is this supposed to help conflict between trail users? This quite clearly will increase conflict between trail users, who now have to navigate four sharp turns, with no extra width (bicycles require more space to turn). Further, anyone waiting to cross Ring Rd. (perhaps to go from the bus terminal to the DC or the rest of campus--a small demographic I know) will have to wait IN THE PATH of the the trail.

This section was already heavily congested, at peak hours, I fully expect traffic jams. This is beyond a bad design, this is professional malpractice...engineering negligence, whatever you want to call it. If this were a road, this would never have gotten implemented. If it had, heads would roll. But because it's cycling infra, I'm sure we'll be getting a garbage statement about how this meets all current regional standards and is perfectly fine.

I'm sorry, I know this is impolite to say, but it is honest, our regional engineers are incompetent at designing cycling infra and should not be permitted to do so anymore.

[timc]

I definitely remember seeing a drawing of this crossing years ago and being disappointed in it. Did we really not discuss it here?

Edit: I found some discussion here: https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/...3#pid56663

But it looks like that was based on an RFT that was cancelled (https://regionofwaterloo.bidsandtenders....64a1d19f8d). There were also gates in those drawings, so I hope that doesn't happen too.

[timc]

I don't know the intricacies of how project planning works, but from what I can find, this is where the project details are:

https://regionofwaterloo.bidsandtenders....aba71859e3

It shows as cancelled, but I was able to find Council meeting notes that say that it was cancelled because the bids came in over budget, and a reduced scope was negotiated. Also, 2019-130 is the number on the bid documents.

It does suck, and that spot is going to be a major issue for congestion, which is probably surprising to nobody. I hope those gates don't get installed.

[danbrotherston]

Probably the gates won't get installed, given they have been removed from the rest of the trail. That being said, at this point, I wouldn't put anything past what our engineers would do.

That being said, design we discussed, which is already truly mediocre is not what is being built today. The proposed design shows a much gentler curve with a trail significantly widened. That is not at all what being constructed right now.