Spur Line Multi-Use Trail

[van Hemessen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (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]

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the no-lighting argument

My 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 concerns

I'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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[markster]

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]

My feeling is that formalizing the trail will result in less crime and vandalism. I would hope that the Region will be considering CPTED 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]

My feeling is that formalizing the trail will result in less crime and vandalism. I would hope that the Region will be considering CPTED 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.

I second this, I live near the Iron Horse Trail (7 min walk) and I use it regularly.

[concerned]

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.

[concerned]

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?

[mpd618]

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.