Trails

[dtkvictim]

I was up near the office last week, and am happy to report that an MUT has gone in along Phillip, and another is going in along Parkside south of Northfield. Hopefully there will be a continuous connection from the Laurel Trail all the way to the St Jacob's market when that second one is done.

Happy about the MUT on Phillip, but the crossing islands they put in seem absurd to me. There are two islands, and I can't understand why either location was chosen. I'm pretty sure one even has an empty lot next to it. Meanwhile no island was added at the connection to the R&T station. I don't really mind since I never feel the need for an island there, but I just don't get it.

[TMKM94]

I wonder if it was a truck that miscalculated its width while going down Gage (as it's wider up until the trail crossing, then narrows drastically as it nears Belmont) as those appear to be wheel covers you'd see on a large truck wheel. Either way, at least it was only a sign this time.

I drove by there on Sunday and I remember seeing a Truck tractor parked near there. So that would be my guess as well.

[Acitta]

So they did this today at the IHT crossing at Mill. I don't know why they couldn't have done this at the same time that they did the "raised" crossing. As an aside, while I was stopped to take this picture, a car accelerated at high speed past me, which just shows how useless this "raised" crossing is for slowing down car traffic.

[danbrotherston]

I believe they are replacing some concrete that was damaged by someone when it was curing (there were tire tracks in it).

Yes, that crossing is particularly poorly constructed, so it doesn't very effectively slow down cars.

Of course, assholes be assholes.

[Chris]

I always thought the raised crossings were more to improve the trail user experience and less about slowing traffic. If they wanted to use them to slow traffic and annoy ploughs they would put a harsher edge on them.

[danbrotherston]

I always thought the raised crossings were more to improve the trail user experience and less about slowing traffic. If they wanted to use them to slow traffic and annoy ploughs they would put a harsher edge on them.

Lol...no...they're about slowing traffic.

I laugh because the city's original raised crossing design had an incredibly harsh and even dangerous experience for trail users, as the crossing was only raised for the roadway and not for the gutters (for drainage). After much advocacy they were convinced to invest the extra money to install more drainage to allow the gutters to be raised as well (full credit to city staff for being responsive to user feedback on this one by the way...at a regional level I'm sure we'd still be screaming into the void).

I'm not sure why they are so inconsistent with their construction, some are quite significant and slow traffic considerably, some like Mill seem to have been done wrong and have barely any effect.

I'm not a construction worker or an engineer, but I am surprised they are so inconsistent.

[neonjoe]

I believe the raised crossings where speed hump still rises for the trail riders were done on the cheap to avoid redoing drainage. Once you raise the crossing to the curb level you now need to implement storm drainage beside the hump to avoid any pooling of water. A simple speed hump is probably a few thousand dollars, once you need to dig up the road to redo drainage you are probably in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
It sucks but theres always a cost/benefit analysis going on with these things.

This speed hump does look like it has had the drainage redone below grade to ensure a slightly smoother crossing.

[danbrotherston]

I believe the raised crossings where speed hump still rises for the trail riders were done on the cheap to avoid redoing drainage. Once you raise the crossing to the curb level you now need to implement storm drainage beside the hump to avoid any pooling of water. A simple speed hump is probably a few thousand dollars, once you need to dig up the road to redo drainage you are probably in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
It sucks but theres always a cost/benefit analysis going on with these things.

This speed hump does look like it has had the drainage redone below grade to ensure a slightly smoother crossing.

Yes, this is all true, but the cost. It's on the order of tens of thousands for doing a proper raised crossing with drainage (and that's considering that the city seems to feel it cannot use the even cheaper options used elsewhere, where the curb is kept open by bridging with a metal plate instead of installing new storm drains.

[dtkmelissa]

Yes, I just saw an example of that metal plate 'bridge' recently and thought that seemed like such a simple solution - I hope we can start seeing that kind of thing locally.

[clasher]

If I were looking to do it cheap I'd put two speed bumps on either side of the trail crossing, and pave the curbs down smooth like they did where the trail crosses West Ave. heading toward Sobeys from Vic Park.

[danbrotherston]

If I were looking to do it cheap I'd put two speed bumps on either side of the trail crossing, and pave the curbs down smooth like they did where the trail crosses West Ave. heading toward Sobeys from Vic Park.

That would also be an option, although I think raised crossings are still better.

The bigger challenge is our city and region can't even figure out how to build flush curbs unless they are along bike lanes.

[KevinL]

Farmer's market trail will officially open in the spring - here's a preview.

[dtkvictim]

Transit hub trail, from the end of Joseph St.

[danbrotherston]

I'm glad they've standardized on that light fixture for trails, it's really quite good...human scale, excellent cutoff, low light pollution, and excellent lighting, much better than other options used previously.

[plam]

Speaking of trails, I tried to go on the Laurel Creek Nature Centre trail this weekend, but I would actually have needed my hiking boots or galoshes or something...