(05-05-2020, 01:02 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: In this case I have no hesitation in calling out the planning process as incompetent because the existence of “desire lines” was evident in aerial photography available to everybody, from politicians to designers to every armchair critic in the world, by just taking a look at Google Maps. If the people responsible for planning major infrastructure can’t be bothered to take a quick look at the aerial photography before proceeding with detailed design, then they are negligent in their duty to the public.

(05-05-2020, 09:21 AM)jamincan Wrote: For what it's worth, this is apparently from staff involved in setting up the walkway:

Quote:This was a requirement of the purchase of property.  From a liability perspective, Canadian Tire (ed. likely referring to Part Source) wanted to minimize pedestrian traffic through their parking lot and loading area.  Without the fencing requirement, we wouldn’t have been in a position to acquire the land and would likely have needed to conduct an expropriation process.  Had the expropriation process been necessary, there’s very little chance that the walkway would be established at this time.

(05-05-2020, 03:51 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 01:02 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: In this case I have no hesitation in calling out the planning process as incompetent because the existence of “desire lines” was evident in aerial photography available to everybody, from politicians to designers to every armchair critic in the world, by just taking a look at Google Maps. If the people responsible for planning major infrastructure can’t be bothered to take a quick look at the aerial photography before proceeding with detailed design, then they are negligent in their duty to the public.

Theoretically I always knew it would be obvious, but looking at the aerial imagery just makes me that much more pissed off about how this situation was created. I count well over a dozen desire paths leading to businesses in the plazas, as well as an actual trail crossing the hydro corridor. The icing on the cake is the access point behind the Shoppers, which had an groomed trail, ramp, and pedestrian crossing marked in the parking lot, but now leads to a fence. I don't believe any planner looked at this area and thought moving the trail to the other side of the hydro corridor and completely cutting off access to the businesses was an acceptable solution. They just didn't care.

(05-05-2020, 02:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 01:47 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I would argue that the LRT planning process was generally conducted in a competent fashion, especially given the political and financial constraints. They were not perfect and missed some things (such as this one) and we may disagree with some of their decisions, but I think calling the entire planning process incompetent is a bit much.

I might agree with calling the entire process incompetent, they have managed to get a train running reliably relatively on time and on budget, something Ottawa has not achieved.

But when it comes to ped and cycling infra, it's a lot worse than "not perfect", they missed more than a few things.

But you hit the nail on the head when you say it's within the political constraints...this is why I won't take any of these excuses, if pedestrians were a priority, the crossing would have been built years ago. The existence of the fence today only shows that we haven't changed our priorities.

(05-05-2020, 03:51 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: Theoretically I always knew it would be obvious, but looking at the aerial imagery just makes me that much more pissed off about how this situation was created. I count well over a dozen desire paths leading to businesses in the plazas, as well as an actual trail crossing the hydro corridor. The icing on the cake is the access point behind the Shoppers, which had an groomed trail, ramp, and pedestrian crossing marked in the parking lot, but now leads to a fence. I don't believe any planner looked at this area and thought moving the trail to the other side of the hydro corridor and completely cutting off access to the businesses was an acceptable solution. They just didn't care.

(05-05-2020, 01:47 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 01:02 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: If the LRT planning process had been conducted in a competent fashion, the need for crossings (multiple) in that stretch would have been identified during the environmental assessment process, and appropriate crossings included in the final design for construction.

I would argue that the LRT planning process was generally conducted in a competent fashion, especially given the political and financial constraints. They were not perfect and missed some things (such as this one) and we may disagree with some of their decisions, but I think calling the entire planning process incompetent is a bit much.

(05-05-2020, 04:47 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Yes, I do agree that they did not do well with bicycling infra; pedestrian was better but they did miss the Traynor crossing, and some of the platform layouts are not conducive to legal pedestrian usage.

But the reality is that (particularly) the cities' and (to a lesser extent) the region's priorities were to minimize vehicular impact: witness the contortions, for example, to protect parking on King St. But this is the reality of municipal politics in North America, and we really shouldn't blame the LRT planning team for those priorities.

(05-05-2020, 04:51 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 03:51 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: Theoretically I always knew it would be obvious, but looking at the aerial imagery just makes me that much more pissed off about how this situation was created. I count well over a dozen desire paths leading to businesses in the plazas, as well as an actual trail crossing the hydro corridor. The icing on the cake is the access point behind the Shoppers, which had an groomed trail, ramp, and pedestrian crossing marked in the parking lot, but now leads to a fence. I don't believe any planner looked at this area and thought moving the trail to the other side of the hydro corridor and completely cutting off access to the businesses was an acceptable solution. They just didn't care.

My question is, who determined what crossings were needed? Whose responsibility was it? Were these given to the planning team as requirements, or was the planning team just told to figure out what crossings were necessary?

This is an honest question, I have no idea what the planning team's terms of reference were.

(05-05-2020, 09:13 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 04:51 PM)tomh009 Wrote: My question is, who determined what crossings were needed? Whose responsibility was it? Were these given to the planning team as requirements, or was the planning team just told to figure out what crossings were necessary?

This is an honest question, I have no idea what the planning team's terms of reference were.

"Who determined"...it doesn't matter who determined...if someone gives you requirements, and you can see that they are wrong, you should tell them about it...even if it isn't your job.  As Bob_McBob said, apathy is the problem.

(05-05-2020, 09:20 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 09:13 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: "Who determined"...it doesn't matter who determined...if someone gives you requirements, and you can see that they are wrong, you should tell them about it...even if it isn't your job.  As Bob_McBob said, apathy is the problem.

Of course you can tell people about that. But if you have no authority to set the requirements, you can't change them. Same in my job, maybe also in yours.

I am not saying this was not a problem. I am simply asking whether it was the LRT planners at fault, or someone else. It's easy to blame the planning team, but were they the actual decision-makers?

(05-06-2020, 11:21 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Happens way too often in software, too. And you pay for it afterward.

(05-07-2020, 09:03 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Oh, yes, a great example. There were some implementation issues to be sure, but I think the fundamental problem was that the use cases were not well thought out and the requirements not well written.