Waterloo Region Connected
Walking in Waterloo Region - 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: Walking in Waterloo Region (/showthread.php?tid=189)



RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - BuildingScout - 01-31-2016

(01-31-2016, 10:22 AM)ookpik Wrote:
(01-31-2016, 08:17 AM)tomh009 Wrote: This setup should include a (pedestrian) fence for the 30m distance from the roundabout to the crossover to discourage exactly that.
And then this forum will be full of posts decrying how ugly all of this looks.

Not really. A low fence for exactly that purpose just went up at the University LRT station and no one complained.


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - MidTowner - 01-31-2016

(01-30-2016, 09:41 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I don't think any of our roundabouts are in highly walkable/pedestrian-friendly areas.  The Homer Watson/Block Line roundabout sees a fair bit of pedestrian traffic, but that's because of the nearby school.

For my own understanding, is the implication here that students or young people or whoever are less important than other types of people on foot? You just identified the Homer Watson/Block Line intersection as heavily used by people on foot, but then discounted that fact because it's a result of the school. Why would the source of the traffic matter?

I also disagree about Ira Needles. I won't claim that there's a lot of people walking there, but there are some, and we should want it to be easier for people to walk here, not even more difficult.

(01-31-2016, 08:17 AM)tomh009 Wrote: This setup should include a (pedestrian) fence for the 30m distance from the roundabout to the crossover to discourage exactly that.

The crossover will inconvenience cars, too, yet we would not accept drivers ignoring it.  Why should we accept pedestrians ignoring it?

Actually, we accept drivers breaking a number of different rules.


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - Canard - 01-31-2016

(01-31-2016, 11:04 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Actually, we accept drivers breaking a number of different rules.

...and the majority of pedestrians ignore walk/don't walk signs when it suits them, and cyclists blow through stop signs and red lights. What's your point?


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - KevinL - 01-31-2016

(01-31-2016, 10:22 AM)ookpik Wrote: Pedestrians vote with their feet.

There was something on the radio the other day about a clever idea for pedestrian walkway placement on a campus. No need to hire consultants to do complex traffic analysis. Just wait for a snowfall, then note the patterns of footprints in the snow. The following spring put in paved pathways on the most traveled routes.

The technical term for these routes is 'desire lines'. They can also be picked out in warmer weather, for example the dirt paths worn out on a grass lawn.


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 01-31-2016

(01-31-2016, 11:04 AM)MidTowner Wrote:
(01-30-2016, 09:41 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I don't think any of our roundabouts are in highly walkable/pedestrian-friendly areas.  The Homer Watson/Block Line roundabout sees a fair bit of pedestrian traffic, but that's because of the nearby school.

For my own understanding, is the implication here that students or young people or whoever are less important than other types of people on foot? You just identified the Homer Watson/Block Line intersection as heavily used by people on foot, but then discounted that fact because it's a result of the school. Why would the source of the traffic matter?

I also disagree about Ira Needles. I won't claim that there's a lot of people walking there, but there are some, and we should want it to be easier for people to walk here, not even more difficult.

The comment I was responding to was about encouraging alternate modes of transport.  All of our roundabouts are currently in suburban areas, and no change to the roundabout will alter the nature of those areas.  So I don't see this as a conflict with our region's overall transportation planning.

And I didn't say students are less important: I simply said that there is pedestrian traffic at Homer Watson/Block Line, not because it's a walkable area, but because there is a school there.  Please don't put words in my mouth.

What do you disagree with about Ira Needles?  My statement that it's not highly walkable or pedestrian-friendly area?  Or some statement that I did not make?

(01-31-2016, 11:04 AM)MidTowner Wrote:
(01-31-2016, 08:17 AM)tomh009 Wrote: This setup should include a (pedestrian) fence for the 30m distance from the roundabout to the crossover to discourage exactly that.

The crossover will inconvenience cars, too, yet we would not accept drivers ignoring it.  Why should we accept pedestrians ignoring it?

Actually, we accept drivers breaking a number of different rules.

I'm not talking about any random rule (whether pedestrians, bicyclists or car drivers).  I'm talking about ensuring the safety of this intersection.  Should we not ask both drivers and pedestrians to use and respect the crosswalk and its rules?


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - ookpik - 01-31-2016

(01-31-2016, 11:25 AM)Canard Wrote: What's your point?

Here we go again.

1. The consequence to a pedestrian or cyclist who violates a traffic regulation and is hit by a motor vehicle is often death or a lifetime of disability.

2. The consequence to a motor vehicle driver who violates a traffic regulation and hits a pedestrian or cyclist is usually a small fine, a few demerit points and an increase in insurance premium.

N.B. 1. >> 2.


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - Canard - 01-31-2016

Well, by those metrics, we should not be building Light Rail, which will maim, disfigure and kill dozens of people per year when rules are not followed.


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - ookpik - 01-31-2016

(01-31-2016, 12:18 PM)Canard Wrote: Yep, here we go again as right - as long as people keep up with the offhanded snide remarks wanting to paint cars as evil, vile, destructors of the earth, instead of one of the many various modes of transportation used in a community.
???

My point is that the consequences to pedestrians/cyclists who violate traffic regulations are grossly asymmetric compared to motor vehicle drivers. They have a much stronger incentive to look before they leap out into traffic. Consequently an attempt to defend misbehaviour on the part of motor vehicle drives by remarking that others do it too is a faulty argument.

Any inference that this is an "offhanded snide remark wanting to paint cars as evil, vile, destructors of the earth..." is entirely a figment of your hyperbolically-vivid imagination.

Quote:By your metrics, we should not be building Light Rail, which will maim, disfigure and kill dozens of people per year when rules are not followed.
Again that's neither what I said nor a reasonable inference considering my, um, undying support for LRT. Read my posts on the various LRT-related threads if you need further reassurance.


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 01-31-2016

(01-31-2016, 12:18 PM)Canard Wrote: Well, by those metrics, we should not be building Light Rail, which will maim, disfigure and kill dozens of people per year when rules are not followed.

Actually I think what he's really saying is that cars need rules (and so does LRT).  But he implies that pedestrians and cyclists don't need to follow rules because they are the ones getting killed or disabled, so that's OK.  (Apparently they will pay their own health care costs, too, if they become disabled for life.)


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - ookpik - 01-31-2016

(01-31-2016, 12:40 PM)tomh009 Wrote: But he implies that pedestrians and cyclists don't need to follow rules because they are the ones getting killed or disabled, so that's OK.
Not at all. Only that the penalties to violators are more severe.


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 01-31-2016

(01-31-2016, 12:43 PM)ookpik Wrote:
(01-31-2016, 12:40 PM)tomh009 Wrote: But he implies that pedestrians and cyclists don't need to follow rules because they are the ones getting killed or disabled, so that's OK.

Not at all. Only that the penalties to violators are more severe.

So, then, we still need to encourage pedestrians to use the crosswalks, to make sure they don't get themselves killed or maimed.  I think a decent fence (and, non, I'm not talking about 3m of height + razor wire) will help them make the right choice.


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - MidTowner - 01-31-2016

(01-31-2016, 11:51 AM)tomh009 Wrote: The comment I was responding to was about encouraging alternate modes of transport.  All of our roundabouts are currently in suburban areas, and no change to the roundabout will alter the nature of those areas.  So I don't see this as a conflict with our region's overall transportation planning.

And I didn't say students are less important: I simply said that there is pedestrian traffic at Homer Watson/Block Line, not because it's a walkable area, but because there is a school there.  Please don't put words in my mouth.

What do you disagree with about Ira Needles?  My statement that it's not highly walkable or pedestrian-friendly area?  Or some statement that I did not make?

I apologize if my remark sounded snide. I really was asking why it would matter that the source of foot traffic is a school. I understand now that you were saying that it is not a walkable area, but does have foot traffic in spite of its poor walkability.

About Ira Needles, I disagree when you say "In St Jacobs, or on Ira Needles, there is usually nary a pedestrian to be seen at any of them, so I think the detour will not become a major issue for many people." I don't think this is accurate regarding Ira Needles: I encounter people walking there. I think we can agree it is not heavily trafficked, but it's not right to say "nary a pedestrian." There are people who walk there. They will be inconvenienced by needless detours. They will be discouraged from walking, along with others.


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - MidTowner - 01-31-2016

(01-31-2016, 11:25 AM)Canard Wrote: ...and the majority of pedestrians ignore walk/don't walk signs when it suits them, and cyclists blow through stop signs and red lights. What's your point?

My point is that tomh009's comment that "The crossover will inconvenience cars, too, yet we would not accept drivers ignoring it. Why should we accept pedestrians ignoring it?" was incorrect. Enforcement being what it is (lax on all road users), we will accept drivers ignoring the crossover and failing to give right of way to people on foot. And we'll accept people on foot crossing outside of the crossovers. We accept drivers failing to give right of way all the time now, and we accept people crossing against lights when it suits them. My point was that, if poorly designed, the crossovers will be ignored by people on foot and in vehicle. And I'll bet not many fines will be issued.

I'm surprised you'd view that as an "offhanded snide remark wanting to paint cars as evil, vile, destructors of the earth." But I apologize for seeming snide.

It's not hard to imagine that people will not go out of their way to take a crossover if there's a more direct path. Yes, we could pay to put fences up to force them to go out of their way, or pay police officers to ticket people if they try to take the direct path- but why wouldn't we just design these crossovers in a way that makes them useful to people?


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - clasher - 01-31-2016

I think the Timmy's at H-W/B-L generates a bit of foot traffic outside of school hours. I've stopped for pedestrians many times coming home from work around 6, well after most kids leave school. I think a pedestrian bridge at this location wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. It would at least let the precious drivers avoid the agony of waiting for someone to cross the road.


RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - Canard - 01-31-2016

See, there we go again. "Precious drivers..."

That's really unfair, and makes it impossible to have a reasonable and mature discussion.