Waterloo Region Connected
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit (/showthread.php?tid=14)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KingandWeber - 04-30-2020

At the risk of stirring the pot, I highly doubt (but could be wrong) that it was the Region's idea to install the fences. Very likely, the business owners required, as part of their negotiations for the purchase of that strip of property, that the Region build a fence. If that is the case, then the question really becomes if this compromise was worth it for the ends of building the connection, or if we should not have bothered since it does not provide a good pedestrian experience.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 04-30-2020

(04-30-2020, 02:43 PM)KingandWeber Wrote: At the risk of stirring the pot, I highly doubt (but could be wrong) that it was the Region's idea to install the fences. Very likely, the business owners required, as part of their negotiations for the purchase of that strip of property, that the Region build a fence. If that is the case, then the question really becomes if this compromise was worth it for the ends of building the connection, or if we should not have bothered since it does not provide a good pedestrian experience.

You may be right (and I'm told that if it was a government's decision, it was CoK), I completely agree that raises the question of whether the compromise was worth it, or even if they could just have pushed for a different situation.  But MOST of all, why it is that businesses on this street want to limit their customer's access to their businesses.  It is a systemic problem in this area.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - jeffster - 04-30-2020

(04-30-2020, 10:59 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Oh FFS...stupid f***ing fence...

Honestly, we don't have fences like that on sidewalks, nothing more than spending money to make ped infra less convenient, more oppressive and more dangerous (from a social safety perspective)....who does this, and why are they so bad at their jobs.

Edit: Also the sidewalk transition is terrible, and the accessibility plates make zero sense.

Not understanding the long fence either. It's an inconvenience not only to those crossing, but also anyone that may drive to one store and wish to shop at another.

So the question is: was there a fence there before? That would seem to be the only legitimate excuse.

Just checked -- no fence. I would have said that perhaps RBC wanted the fence there as a level of security, but a fence wouldn't need to enclose the walk way. So my other guess is that this is a safety measure, as the region bought the land that was separating the property the bank is on and the property that Part Source is on. Safety to pedestrians from walking on the lot rather than sidewalk.

Could also be some other legal reason I am sure.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - taylortbb - 05-01-2020

(04-30-2020, 01:03 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: You are wrong.  There are Rules and Regulations set out to follow for a reason.  Most rules were not created out of something good.  They were created out of necessity because something bad happened.  Mitigating risk to others is never a bad thing even if it means you have to walk to the end of a pathway to get to where you want to go.

I find it hard to believe it mitigates any real risk to people though. As Dan has pointed out, people walk from their cars that are parked right beside the fence, so clearly it's a place that people are expected to be walking.

I can accept it mitigates legal risk to the business, but maybe the question is then, why are businesses allowed to do that?

Through zoning in downtown areas we often require that privately owned property be paved like it was an extension of the sidewalk. The 1 Victoria condos are an example of this, where the sidewalk in front of them appears much wider than the actual sidewalk due to part of private property being paved level with the sidewalk. The city wouldn't allow 1 Victoria to install a fence along there, even though it would mitigate 1 Victoria's risk of someone slipping and falling on their property. Why we do allow it on Fairway Rd? Accepting that risk should be a requirement of running a business that is open to the public, adjacent to a trail.

If people walking represents such risk to businesses, but people driving doesn't, maybe the problem is our liability laws. Make the business liable for car collisions on their property, but not for pedestrians walking through it, and suddenly businesses will be eager to ensure people walk to their business rather than drive.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Rainrider22 - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 11:29 AM)taylortbb Wrote:
(04-30-2020, 01:03 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: You are wrong.  There are Rules and Regulations set out to follow for a reason.  Most rules were not created out of something good.  They were created out of necessity because something bad happened.  Mitigating risk to others is never a bad thing even if it means you have to walk to the end of a pathway to get to where you want to go.

I find it hard to believe it mitigates any real risk to people though. As Dan has pointed out, people walk from their cars that are parked right beside the fence, so clearly it's a place that people are expected to be walking.

I can accept it mitigates legal risk to the business, but maybe the question is then, why are businesses allowed to do that?

Through zoning in downtown areas we often require that privately owned property be paved like it was an extension of the sidewalk. The 1 Victoria condos are an example of this, where the sidewalk in front of them appears much wider than the actual sidewalk due to part of private property being paved level with the sidewalk. The city wouldn't allow 1 Victoria to install a fence along there, even though it would mitigate 1 Victoria's risk of someone slipping and falling on their property. Why we do allow it on Fairway Rd? Accepting that risk should be a requirement of running a business that is open to the public, adjacent to a trail.

If people walking represents such risk to businesses, but people driving doesn't, maybe the problem is our liability laws. Make the business liable for car collisions on their property, but not for pedestrians walking through it, and suddenly businesses will be eager to ensure people walk to their business rather than drive.
To be clear...I am not saying I am in agreement or not. I am simply saying, with my own personal experiences with business insurance, I can totally see the demand was placed on the property owners by the insurance company.  It isn't like business and property owners want to spend money..,


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 05-01-2020

This is one of those cases where I really wish we had more information.

I’m pretty much convinced that the fences should not be there. I haven’t actually been there and investigated carefully enough to be 100% certain, but based on what I’ve seen in this thread I feel pretty comfortable saying they are a mistake and should not have been built.

That being said, whose mistake? Fearful insurance companies? Fearful business owners? Courts which make stupid liability decisions? City planners following a rule book that clearly doesn’t apply? I don’t know and can’t tell without more detail about how the design decisions were made.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 01:42 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: This is one of those cases where I really wish we had more information.

I’m pretty much convinced that the fences should not be there. I haven’t actually been there and investigated carefully enough to be 100% certain, but based on what I’ve seen in this thread I feel pretty comfortable saying they are a mistake and should not have been built.

That being said, whose mistake? Fearful insurance companies? Fearful business owners? Courts which make stupid liability decisions? City planners following a rule book that clearly doesn’t apply? I don’t know and can’t tell without more detail about how the design decisions were made.

I agree it could be any of them, but I don't care who or why, there's more than enough blame to go around. At the end of the day the city built it, they should have pushed back on the requirements to have fencing if those requirements didn't come from them. I am utterly sick and tired of the excuses. This was an oversight 5 years ago, I can buy, that a mistake was made, our planning--even for public transit--completely ignores the people on foot, and considers ONLY cars. But that was 5 years ago, it should not have taken this long, we all play a part. How come those businesses weren't demanding this be solved, it's their customers that have been cut off.

The fact is, such a situation would never have been allowed to occur for car drivers, by giving credit for the original oversight, I'm being generous, but taking 5 years to fix it is unacceptable to me. The final fix being broken in this way, also unacceptable. At some point, someone has to stand up and say no, this BS cannot continue. We all thing we're progressive because we built an LRT that literally prevents people from from walking places, that has stations that are inaccessible to people on foot, the problem is not money...the problem is mindset.  That's why this makes me angry, because it just shows the mindset has not changed.

The problem is bigger than "one" obstacle, the problem is everyone being complicit in the broken system.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - creative - 05-01-2020

Out of curiosity. How does complaining on a forum lead to a fix of the problem.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 04:39 PM)creative Wrote: Out of curiosity. How does complaining on a forum lead to a fix of the problem.

If you don't want to participate in the discussion, you don't have to participate in the discussion.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - creative - 05-01-2020

Just asking!


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - plam - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 04:39 PM)creative Wrote: Out of curiosity. How does complaining on a forum lead to a fix of the problem.

People talk about it, decide that they're not the only ones who think it's a concern, organize in person, contact their representatives, and delegate at public meetings. How else does change get made? Not through individual action for the most part.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - WLU - 05-01-2020

(04-30-2020, 03:40 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(04-30-2020, 10:59 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Oh FFS...stupid f***ing fence...

Honestly, we don't have fences like that on sidewalks, nothing more than spending money to make ped infra less convenient, more oppressive and more dangerous (from a social safety perspective)....who does this, and why are they so bad at their jobs.

Edit: Also the sidewalk transition is terrible, and the accessibility plates make zero sense.

Not understanding the long fence either. It's an inconvenience not only to those crossing, but also anyone that may drive to one store and wish to shop at another.

So the question is: was there a fence there before? That would seem to be the only legitimate excuse.

Just checked -- no fence.  I would have said that perhaps RBC wanted the fence there as a level of security, but a fence wouldn't need to enclose the walk way. So my other guess is that this is a safety measure, as the region bought the land that was separating the property the bank is on and the property that Part Source is on. Safety to pedestrians from walking on the lot rather than sidewalk.

Could also be some other legal reason I am sure.
Actually the existing parking lots are two separate pieces of property.  The owners of Parts Source a (stand-alone building) may not appreciate someone parking on their lot and then heading over to the bank or vice versa.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - WLU - 05-01-2020

(04-30-2020, 01:23 PM)jamincan Wrote: There are other examples of walkways adjacent to commercial properties that aren't fenced off, but there are also lots, probably the majority, of examples where they are fenced off. I agree with Dan that this is actually a fairly significant safety issue as it can prevent escape for a potential victim. In comparison, it's hard for me to believe that the risk to adjacent businesses is more than marginally higher. It's the sort of thing that would have been brought up immediately with public consultation.
Just curious, just asking a question but what scenario would you see where it prevents escape for a potential victim.  Again just asking, no offence.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 10:50 PM)WLU Wrote:
(04-30-2020, 03:40 PM)jeffster Wrote: Not understanding the long fence either. It's an inconvenience not only to those crossing, but also anyone that may drive to one store and wish to shop at another.

So the question is: was there a fence there before? That would seem to be the only legitimate excuse.

Just checked -- no fence.  I would have said that perhaps RBC wanted the fence there as a level of security, but a fence wouldn't need to enclose the walk way. So my other guess is that this is a safety measure, as the region bought the land that was separating the property the bank is on and the property that Part Source is on. Safety to pedestrians from walking on the lot rather than sidewalk.

Could also be some other legal reason I am sure.
Actually the existing parking lots are two separate pieces of property.  The owners of Parts Source a (stand-alone building) may not appreciate someone parking on their lot and then heading over to the bank or vice versa.

Why not? They could before...why wouldn't partsource want it's customers to have convenient access to a bank?


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 05-01-2020

(05-01-2020, 10:50 PM)WLU Wrote:
(04-30-2020, 01:23 PM)jamincan Wrote: There are other examples of walkways adjacent to commercial properties that aren't fenced off, but there are also lots, probably the majority, of examples where they are fenced off. I agree with Dan that this is actually a fairly significant safety issue as it can prevent escape for a potential victim. In comparison, it's hard for me to believe that the risk to adjacent businesses is more than marginally higher. It's the sort of thing that would have been brought up immediately with public consultation.
Just curious, just asking a question but what scenario would you see where it prevents escape for a potential victim.  Again just asking, no offence.

You do understand how cages work yes?

When there is no fence I have 365 directions I can run away from someone who is threatening, when the fences are up, I have one, and there could be a train in the way, or another person.