Spur Line Multi-Use Trail [Archive]

zanate

06-10-2011, 10:54 AM

Spur Line Multi-Use Trail

The Region of Waterloo has started planning a new multi-use trail on the Spur line from King St. S in Waterloo, to Ahrens St. E in Kitchener:

382

The first public meeting was held last night at Regional Headquarters, with roughly 70-80 people in attendance. Attendees ranged from adjacent property owners and residents near the trail, to people simply interested in seeing more off-road trails and cycling links in our community. Another meeting will be announced later this year, to reveal initial proposals.

The Spur Line is owned by the Region, but operated by CN and used by GEXR. There is an informal dirt path along the spur that has been used for decades by local residents. Plans are being made with the assumption that rail use will continue into the foreseeable future, and the focus is to provide a safer and more accessible link from Uptown to Downtown next to the existing rail line.

The purpose of the first meeting was simply to get initial details out there, and then gather major items of interest and issues from the public.

I wrote up a more detailed commentary on my blog (http://waterloons.blogspot.com/2011/06/spur-line-trail-initial-meeting.html). Very rough estimates on the trail are that it will cost somewhere around $1.8 to 2 million, and if approved, could be in construction by 2012 or 2013. There are a lot of interesting factors affecting the trail, including the fate of the rail line itself, numerous encroachments on the spur by adjacent businesses (and possibly residences), and the tradeoff between safety and privacy of nearby residents.

The Region website has no details about this project that I can find, because with the website switchover, search results are still broken. Some information was provided by handout which I'll try and include here later.

van Hemessen

06-10-2011, 11:03 AM

Why not just leave it as it is? Is safety the main reason they want to upgrade it to something more formal?

I used to bike down that informal trail all the time and it still amazes me how you can get from St. Jacobs to Woodside NHS without leaving the RR tracks.

PS: I may actually post some photos from that trail in the Photography sub-forum.

markster

06-10-2011, 12:46 PM

Is a paved trail not better than an unpaved trail?

I'm not sure I understand why we wouldn't want to improve this.

KevinL

06-10-2011, 01:01 PM

Is a paved trail not better than an unpaved trail?

I'm not sure I understand why we wouldn't want to improve this.

Absolutely. Larger capacity, resistance to erosion, clear separation from rails to avoid liability - the list is very long on the positives.

zanate

06-10-2011, 01:23 PM

The current dirt trail is rough and very narrow. When the rail bed was regraded a few years ago, it became less passable as the area was strewn with rail bed rock. And yet, people use it. It's a natural pathway. Local residents have been calling for it to be a real pathway for over twenty years-- numerous attendees last night stated they have been waiting for a trail here for literally two or three decades.

It's great that you could bike down the informal trail end to end now, but right now every time you come up on someone you have to negotiate your way around them. When it's wet, it's also muddy. It's not accessible to the handicapped (as pointed out by one wheelchair-bound person last night.) It's choked with vegetation and not safely passable after dark (and not just "late night" after dark here, I'm talking fall/winter after-work dark). To answer van Hemessen's question "Why not just leave it as it is?": because it's a waste. It could be so much more.

IEFBR14

06-10-2011, 01:37 PM

When it's wet, it's also muddy. It's not accessible to the handicapped (as pointed out by one wheelchair-bound person last night.) It's choked with vegetation and not safely passable after dark (and not just "late night" after dark here, I'm talking fall/winter after-work dark)..
I would assume as well that if this became an official trail it would get plowed in the winter, just like the other city trails.

As for lighting, the city should install solar powered, battery backed lighting with the objective of minimizing operational and maintenance costs. If solar isn't practical then they should at least run some wiring alongside or under the pavement so that mains-powered lighting can be added later.

zanate

06-10-2011, 06:08 PM

I would assume as well that if this became an official trail it would get plowed in the winter, just like the other city trails.

As for lighting, the city should install solar powered, battery backed lighting with the objective of minimizing operational and maintenance costs. If solar isn't practical then they should at least run some wiring alongside or under the pavement so that mains-powered lighting can be added later.

Region rep stated that it should be incorporated into winter maintenance plans by the cities and get the same treatment as Iron Horse, though they couldn't speak for the cities. Comments were made about the quality of cities' attention to other city-managed sidewalks.

The Region rep also stated that it's currently the City of Kitchener's policy to not light its trails. Not all of the trail is in Kitchener, of course, but that would have to be dealt with. Many different people raised the lighting issue, as well as the possibilities for green lighting and low light-pollution setups. Timed lights (ie. off between 7pm-6am, as an example) were also raised, as a way to balance the needs of trail users against the effect on property owners next to the trail. Also the potential entrapment issues of an unevenly lit trail seeming safe late at night.

IEFBR14

06-10-2011, 07:35 PM

Region rep stated that it should be incorporated into winter maintenance plans by the cities and get the same treatment as Iron Horse, though they couldn't speak for the cities. Comments were made about the quality of cities' attention to other city-managed sidewalks.Ironically (no pun intended) the Iron Horse Trail is better maintained by the city than the city maintains the sidewalks in front of its own property along city streets.

Many different people raised the lighting issue, as well as the possibilities for green lighting and low light-pollution setups. Timed lights (ie. off between 7pm-6am, as an example) were also raised, as a way to balance the needs of trail users against the effect on property owners next to the trail. Also the potential entrapment issues of an unevenly lit trail seeming safe late at night.Those are all red herrings or feeble excuses, at best. LED lights draw little power so could be solar powered with battery backup. They're also dim enough that they'd cause no light pollution, certainly nothing like conventional lights that already illuminate streets and sidewalks. And LEDs are far more reliable than other types of lighting so there would be greatly reduced incidence of "uneven" lighting as the result of burned out lighting.

zanate

06-13-2011, 11:55 AM

Those are all red herrings or feeble excuses, at best. LED lights draw little power so could be solar powered with battery backup. They're also dim enough that they'd cause no light pollution, certainly nothing like conventional lights that already illuminate streets and sidewalks. And LEDs are far more reliable than other types of lighting so there would be greatly reduced incidence of "uneven" lighting as the result of burned out lighting.

You make good points, but I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the no-lighting argument, and certainly not to dismiss people's concerns.

This article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1145/is_8_35/ai_65132250/pg_2/?tag=mantle_skin;content) (to which I've linked to Page 2, but the whole thing is worth a read) discusses, and comes down in favour of lighting, but also underscores the importance of doing it properly. The same page of the article includes involving the "anxious neighbours" who worry about both light pollution of their property and safety issues they perceive about the trail. If unaddressed, they could become vocal opponents.

The way I see it, if you do lighting, the bar is pretty high to get lighting design and other trail design aspects right. If you fail in that, we could create the problems you were so dismissive of.

I wonder if there's good data on urban trail lighting?

IEFBR14

06-13-2011, 01:00 PM

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the no-lighting argumentMy experience as a pedestrian on the IHT is that it's very unsafe after dark, not only from potential muggers but also from cyclists who can't see me and, in many cases, who I can't see/hear. So IMO no-lighting isn't a viable option; I no longer use the IHT after dark, instead I use my car.

certainly not to dismiss people's concernsI'm not dismissing concerns as much as pointing out that views about conventional lighting are outdated. You don't need bright, potentially polluting, light to make a trail much safer than leaving it unlit. I've had LED lighting in and around my house for years. It's hardly bright enough to read under. It's now harder to identify a stranger's face. But it's perfectly fine for illuminating a pathway, for finding a key and inserting it into a door lock, etc.

The same page of the article includes involving the "anxious neighbours" who worry about both light pollution of their property and safety issues they perceive about the trail. If unaddressed, they could become vocal opponents.If anything, muted lighting should allay neighbours' concerns compared to an unlit path in total darkness because they'd be able to see suspicious activity and report it to authorities.

The way I see it, if you do lighting, the bar is pretty high to get lighting design and other trail design aspects right.One way to accomplish that would be to experiment with various lighting options. For example, while I suspect that lights driven by motion detectors are more disruptive than constant lighting of the same intensity, I think it's worth trying both first. And yes the experimentation itself will be disruptive until we find the solutions that work best. (What works best in Eugene, Oregon may be a total disaster in RoW simply because of the differences in climate. For instance, the conversion of traffic signal lights to LED technology created a problem with clearing snow off them, a situation that doesn't happen with incandescents because the heat they give off automatically melts snow. There may be similar issues with LED-based trail lighting.)

concerned

06-16-2011, 12:14 PM

As a resident with property backing onto the proposed trail I would like to see it left as it is. The negatives for me are: reduced privacy, increase in sound from those on the tracks (especially at night), increase in the garbage thrown into my backyard, increase of light in my backyard and since there will be more people traveling the track I assume a decrease in safety for home owners who will be subject to more vandalism not to mention other safety concerns. I also wonder what will become of the wildlife that currently resides along the informal trail and believe me there are many different animals back there. For those complaining about the current path, let me remind you that anyone who is using it now is trespassing -- there are signs up that state this, so it isn't really fair to complain about the current state of the path.
Now, I would like to see more bike paths, we do need these and not just for the convenience and safety of the bicyclists but also to make it safer for the pedestrians on the sidewalks, but I am tentative about formalizing and paving the current path.
I would like to point out that the fence that divides my property from the tracks currently is marked 'property of CN' just so you know that I am not encroaching on the Region's land.
Finally, none of the trails shown in the presentation backed onto residential land. I would like to hear from home owners with trails adjacent to their property so that their comments and complaints can be adressed before the Waterloo Spur Line Trail is implemented.

zanate

06-16-2011, 01:19 PM

As a resident with property backing onto the proposed trail I would like to see it left as it is. The negatives for me are: reduced privacy, increase in sound from those on the tracks (especially at night), increase in the garbage thrown into my backyard, increase of light in my backyard and since there will be more people traveling the track I assume a decrease in safety for home owners who will be subject to more vandalism not to mention other safety concerns.

What sort of experiences have you had so far with living next to the spur? I noticed when I walked its length that there was quite a lot of graffiti in evidence already, and I have heard some anecdotal mention of abuse of this space (one older gentleman who admitted to drinking with his buds in there during his youth comes to mind).

And I know nobody is forgetting the recent homicide along the Iron Horse.

If you were at the first meeting, you'll remember how some people said that it must have lights, and others said there must not be any lights. There's no question that these opposing needs have to be balanced against each other.

Given the number of people who said they've been waiting decades for this space to become a proper maintained trail, my personal feeling is that we owe it to ourselves to make this significant amount of urban space usable to more than just an occasional 4 car train. It's criminally underused right now, and the community has voted with its feet, pounding out the informal path regardless of legality. But at the same time I think that no matter what steps the Region takes in formalizing this, some of the issues that Concerned raised can't be eradicated.

So how do we solve this? There's some smart people here who can pitch suggestions, and we can bring them up at the next meeting.

concerned

06-16-2011, 01:57 PM

Yes, I was at the meeting. Currently by my house there has been vandalism, littering (liquor bottles from those drinking in the bushes as well as the usual garbage) and, of course, lots of noise from inebriated people once the bars close (this is our 4 A.M. alarm clock, the trains never wake us, but the screaming and loud talking certainly do). My neighbour has been broken into twice -- the trail makes for a fast escape route. At the Kitchener end you will also find used needles and meth. bottles as drug usage and deals go on there. I am also concerned that if this path is paved then motorized vehicles will use it especially at night and this will be near impossible to stop.
As far as policing the trail goes, it is a lack of courtesy to those of us who live adjacent to the trail to expect us to do this -- we need our sleep, too.
I am thinking that the people who have been waiting years for this do not live beside the tracks.

KevinL

06-16-2011, 02:23 PM

On the motorized-vehicle issue, the Iron Horse is gated well to keep them off. I imagine the same will be done here.

markster

06-16-2011, 02:31 PM

It sounds to me like the problems are already there, and that a little extra visibility could serve to discourage them.

The light pollution point can be a concern, but hopefully they can keep the lighting low.
i.e. they shouldn't put up 12 metre sodium street lights, but perhaps something more down to earth like 3 metre high soft white lights. Something short enough that for the most part the properties will be already shielded by the existing vegetation at the property line.

smably

06-16-2011, 02:32 PM

My feeling is that formalizing the trail will result in less crime and vandalism. I would hope that the Region will be considering CPTED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_prevention_through_environmental_design) principles during the design phase.

I'm going to predict a mild lift in property values adjacent to the trail if this goes through. It is a very useful amenity. I'd definitely consider proximity to the Iron Horse Trail if I were in the market for a house today.

RangersFan

06-16-2011, 02:45 PM

concerned

06-16-2011, 03:00 PM

concerned

06-16-2011, 03:09 PM

mpd618

06-16-2011, 03:46 PM

There will be an increase in traffic, however, and with that comes an increase in problems. I don't know that lights will be the answer to this. Most people I have spoken to have said they would not use the trail at night even with lights.

I don't agree that more traffic means an increase in problems. When you have more regular passers-by at all times of day and during all seasons, a place becomes less attractive for crime and mischief.

Well I would rather have cold hard facts that someone's feelings about this and I am sure the people alongside the Iron Horse Trail where muggings and a murder have occurred would agree.

You're also welcome to offer cold hard facts about lighting and trail usage.

As for the Iron Horse Trail - it isn't lit at night, and thus has a severe drop-off in use after sunset.

pnijjar

06-16-2011, 06:12 PM

I should have attended this meeting. I use this trail several times a week during the winter -- it is my main route to get to the University of Waterloo. I understand that accessibility is a concern, but I am against paving the trail. If we pave the trail then more cyclists will use it, and then it will become as treacherous as the Iron Horse Trail, which is a route that scares me both as a pedestrian and as a cyclist. This is by far the best pedestrian route to Uptown for me, and I want it to stay that way. Supposedly people bike there already but in my experience this is rare.

The trail is quite narrow in spots, so they will have to tear up a lot in order to make it wide enough to be "safe".

I am happy to save the $2 million and leave it as an informal trail. There are enough able-bodied pedestrians to make the route work.

Lighting at night is fine in the winter because of the snow. (But I am male, and therefore oblivious to many fears around assault in dark spaces.)

Mind you, I don't use the trail during the summer, so I imagine that concerns are different then.

smably

06-16-2011, 06:44 PM

Well I would rather have cold hard facts that someone's feelings about this and I am sure the people alongside the Iron Horse Trail where muggings and a murder have occurred would agree. And proximity to the trail is definitely not the same as having it in your backyard.
As for an increase in property values goes, check with those beside the Iron Horse Trail and adjust for the general increase in housing costs. Any real estate agents here?

FWIW, based on a quick look at MLS, I see three listings that explicitly mention proximity to the Iron Horse Trail:

"...near Belmont Village & The Iron Horse Trail" (http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=10671421&PidKey=-903322479)
"...situated within steps of Belmont Village, the Iron Horse Trail and Uptown Waterloo" (http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=10789125&PidKey=1804128588)
"Close to the Iron Trail..." (sic) (http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetails.aspx?propertyId=10582195&PidKey=-890144598)

In the case of the second one, the property actually does back onto the trail. So I think that's a pretty good indication that sellers see it as a positive feature -- even when it is quite literally in your back yard!

concerned

06-16-2011, 07:13 PM

I am actually researching the lighting aspect of this since I don't know myself. This is why I am asking here. But, I don't want people's opinions necessarily, I want to read research on this before I can offer an informed opinion.

As far as an increase in property values goes, I am not planning on selling so it isn't a positive point for me. Maybe we should ask the person whose property backs onto the trail why they are selling....

bcwessel

06-16-2011, 07:44 PM

The bicycles are coming. You may love it. You may hate it. Pretending that it is not going to happen/happening already is not a reasonable position to take. We can either choose to plan now to accommodate the present and future growth of what, by all rational assumptions, will become an increasingly popular and necessary component of our regional transportation system. Or, we can choose to ignore the issue. Avoidance not only places existing users in a needlessly dangerous situation, but it also represents a huge missed opportunity to promote the future growth of a ridiculously cost-effective, healthy, equitable, safe and fun form of mobility (these things benefit not only the individual users, but the entire community by way of cleaner air, less congestion, greater energy security, fewer hospital visits, and less space required for other, larger, forms of infrastructure).

Is there a better option for creating an important east-west link between the western edges of our expanding cores? I personally don't think so, though I welcome other suggestions. I feel it is important take into account the wants and needs of affected constituents in a matter such as this, but simply opposing an obvious and necessary change provides no adequate productive solutions to the future wants and needs of the broader community. Long term, this route will be seen as a valuable amenity by many potential neighbours, and though I sympathize with existing neighbours and users who don't feel the same based on the potential perceived short-term impacts of an upgraded trail, ultimately I have a difficult time seeing projects like this as anything but huge net positives.

concerned

06-16-2011, 07:55 PM

bcwessel

06-16-2011, 08:08 PM

Oh, I really have no problems with bikes and there are some on the trail currently -- they are not the problem. I also agree that we need to address the inadequate bike routes that currently exist. But we do need to go into this with our eyes wide open and address safety and maintenance issues while we can still do something about it.
I am still concerned about the wildlife on the trail now (and I am not talking about the drunks). Also there will be nothing short term about the impacts on neighbouring residents. If you read my posts, you will see that I am not being negative about the trail, just expressing my concerns and looking for solutions and suggestions.

My only suggestion would be to remain an active participant in the planning process of the route, but do so with your eyes wide open. Potentially thousand of bicycles trips a day will need to go somewhere, and the Spurline presents the most cost-effective, easiest-to-implement solution with some great potential benefits for both users and the broader community.

concerned

06-16-2011, 08:33 PM

Users of the trail will likely make at most two trips per day, yet we live here all the time. All I have been hearing about is the broader community benefits. What I want is a little concern about the impact of this on those of us who back onto the trail. A tall, solid fence would do wonders to assuage my concerns and yet this issue was dodged before the meeting, at the meeting, and is still being dodged.

And I still want to know who will maintain it, will it be policed, and what about the animals who live there? If you want to use the trails in the winter you will need to know that there will be snow removal and that gates will indeed be installed at the intersections for the safety of the riders. The safety of trail users has been a concern for me since I moved here ---- after all it is the residents along the trail who call the police and clean up the garbage now? If this is made larger, then we will need the people who use the trail to step up and help.

pnijjar

06-16-2011, 09:32 PM

The bicycles are coming. You may love it. You may hate it. Pretending that it is not going to happen/happening already is not a reasonable position to take. We can either choose to plan now to accommodate the present and future growth of what, by all rational assumptions, will become an increasingly popular and necessary component of our regional transportation system. Or, we can choose to ignore the issue.

Just because bicycles are coming does not mean that they ought to trump the safety of pedestrians.

There are very nice routes down quiet streets that get to the same place the spurline trail does in a reasonable amount of time. When I am on my bike I can take Guelph or Blucher street to Ellis, then head up Ellis, then turn on Allen street and end up in Waterloo. None of these streets are very busy, and although they add a little more travel time than speeding down a paved spurline trail, none of them are bad. If you don't like Ellis you could take Moore, which is also fairly quiet.

If you keep the spurline trail undeveloped then fewer bicycles will ride it. That's desirable in my view, because walking is much slower than biking, and the spurline is one of the few feasible walking routes to Uptown from the Eastern side of central Kitchener.

Waterlooer

06-16-2011, 09:52 PM

IEFBR14

06-16-2011, 10:02 PM

A trail is meant for walking, biking, roller blading , etc. I don't see a problem with cycling on it because the paths are bigger than side walks which means there isn't really any danger to pedestrians at all.
Have you ever walked on a multi-use trail as cyclists in a hurry pass you on either side and/or from both directions? Did you feel safe?

bcwessel

06-16-2011, 10:22 PM

Just because bicycles are coming does not mean that they ought to trump the safety of pedestrians.

There are very nice routes down quiet streets that get to the same place the spurline trail does in a reasonable amount of time. When I am on my bike I can take Guelph or Blucher street to Ellis, then head up Ellis, then turn on Allen street and end up in Waterloo. None of these streets are very busy, and although they add a little more travel time than speeding down a paved spurline trail, none of them are bad. If you don't like Ellis you could take Moore, which is also fairly quiet.

If you keep the spurline trail undeveloped then fewer bicycles will ride it. That's desirable in my view, because walking is much slower than biking, and the spurline is one of the few feasible walking routes to Uptown from the Eastern side of central Kitchener.

I'm certainly not in favour of endangering pedestrians to promote cycling (they're actually kind of related activities, in my opinion). The tension between transportation modes (see: LRT debate) is at the heart of all route planning, and while the only perfect solution (in terms of addressing this tension, not as a holistic evaluation of a multimodal system) is full segregation of modes, there are many ways to lessen the impacts of one mode on the others. For instance, properly identifying modes which are most and least compatible is crucial: mixing bikes and pedestrians isn't always the best; mixing bikes and cars is worse; mixing cars and pedestrians is strictly forbidden (in North America. For now (http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/3.102_1.jpg)).

This presents the challenge of how to encourage more of the right modal choices without infringing upon the good choices other users are already currently making. One solution, the Spurline Trail upgrade, is to mix the two most compatible users on a multi-use trail. It's not ideal for either pedestrians, or for more advance cyclists, but if designed properly and shared properly, it has the potential for many positive outcomes (for instances, more users choosing to cycle instead of drive).

Add to this the future goals of urbanizing the area between Uptown and Downtown. While not especially attractive right now, taking the long view of the Midtown section of King St. it should be considered a viable, vibrant pedestrian route. If it's not, we're doing something very wrong (the corners at King and Victoria and King and Allen suggest that we're mostly starting to get it right). In fact, the pedestrianization of this stretch is more or less a bi-product of what we are trying to achieve with the LRT route. On this note, the collective meltdown that would ensue if any more of King were taken away from cars to say, build dedicated bike lanes, is simply terrifying to think about. So, the alternative is to create a quality east-west connection which is suitable for both pedestrians and cyclists by recognizing that the two modes are in competition for space and then working hard to ensure that the needs or both sets of users are thoughtfully considered.

As for the alternative routes you've listed above, I currently love riding along the older, tree-lined streets, and in future I hope that many/most/all of them become shared bicycle boulevards (http://www.bta4bikes.org/at_work/bikeboulevards.php) like those being implemented with great success in Portland's inner suburbs.

mpd618

06-16-2011, 10:45 PM

If you keep the spurline trail undeveloped then fewer bicycles will ride it. That's desirable in my view, because walking is much slower than biking, and the spurline is one of the few feasible walking routes to Uptown from the Eastern side of central Kitchener.

And I think it is desirable to massively increase the number of people cycling in this Region, because it is healthier for our community, the environment, and our transportation costs. This is a corridor that would make a fantastic connection for cycling, and there is enough space to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists -- and to do it better than the Iron Horse Trail does. Unlike the current situation, a paved, formal, snow-cleared, lit path would allow use year-round and all day long - which is needs to be in order to compete effectively with the car as a transportation choice.

Increasing the proportion of trips made by bicycle is an aim of the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, and of the Region of Waterloo. At the meeting, I was encouraged to hear many neighbours of the trail voice their support for getting more people cycling along it.

IEFBR14

06-22-2011, 08:37 AM

Re lighting, there's a company in Halifax that specializes in: LED Roadway Lighting (http://www.ledroadwaylighting.com/).

While their main claim is huge energy savings compared to conventional lights note that "LRL's targeted Optics system lands an extremely high percentage of lumens from the fixture in the target area where you need it -- on roadways and sidewalks -- and nowhere else. LRL's fixtures are Dark Sky certified so they won't waste light and energy by sending it towards homes and the night sky."

Also worth noting, "Dr. Jack Josefowicz, Chief Technology Officer, has a PhD in Physics from the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada."

zanate

10-28-2011, 11:36 AM

Was anyone able to go to the Public Consultation last night? I didn't make it.

Links:
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/discoveringtheregion/parkstrails.asp
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/discoveringTheRegion/resources/WaterlooSpurLineMulti-useTrailFeasibilityandDesignStudyPCC2FULLv8.pdf

Feedback is due Nov 10th, and the PDF feedback page lists an email address to submit feedback to.

I know some people had aspirations about lighting and surface for this trail, but the one thing I emphasized in my feedback was that their railway crossing points ("Typical Intersection #2") were not reasonable because they directed cyclists to dismount and walk their bikes along a segment of sidewalk. Which we know will never happen, and it will just encourage more sidewalk cycling.

zanate

01-20-2012, 09:14 AM

I received a letter from the Region on progress on the spur line trail. Here's the interesting parts transcribed (emphasis is mine):

Creating a trail along the Waterloo Spur Line from Ahrens Street to King Street is feasible;
A designated multi-use trail could be implemented between Regina Street in Waterloo and Wilhelm Street (near Weber Street) in Kitchener. The study recommends stopping the multi-use trail at Regina Street then continuing with on-street bike facilities and sidewalks along Willis Way to Caroline Street to connect to the Laurel Trail. It is also recommended that the official multi-use trail stop at Wilhelm Street in Kitchener until the Weber Street widening is completed. The Weber Street project includes a multi-use trail on the west side of Weber Street for both cyclists and pedestrians, and a pedestrian refuge island near the Waterloo Spur corridor;
The multi-use trail preferred alignment runs along the north side of the corridor except at Laurel Creek Bridge (behind the City of Waterloo City Hall) to Regina Street where it is recommended to be located on the south side; and
For the material options :

Asphalt is recommended for the surface;
No fences between the trail and rail are recommended; and
Lighting the entire trail is recommended subject to funding resource availability.

The results of the Waterloo Spur Line Multi-Use Trail Feasibility Study are scheduled to be considered by Regional Councillors at the Regional Planning and Works Committee meeting to be held on Tuesday morning, Jan 31, 2012. The staff report will be available for public review on the Region of Waterloo website (http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/discoveringtheregion/parkstrails.asp) after 4:30p.m. on Friday, Jan 27, 2012.

My commentary:

The lighting recommendation (even with the funding proviso) is a surprise, as we don't see much if any trail lighting in this city.
The "official" trail still doesn't connect along the spur through past (edit) Regina St., but I hope that we still maintain an informal trail through this part of town, as the alternative routing isn't as attractive.
A few places like Len's Mill are in for a big shock when they lose more then half of their parking which encroaches on Region land on the side of the tracks that it is recommended to have the trail. Or would they? Does anyone know if Len's Mill or anyone else have been there long enough to still make a case for adverse possession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession), or could it even apply here?
It appears that by recommending an (almost) constant alignment, the study authors have moved away from the idea that the trail would frequently switch from one side of the tracks to the other. I hope this is true, as it would make for a much better continuous trail.

Any other observations?