+- 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 - danbrotherston - 10-31-2020
(10-31-2020, 10:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(10-31-2020, 09:51 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: AFAIK Highland was constructed in it's previous configuration in the 90s.
Yeah, I guess that's getting on 30 years ago, but it doesn't feel that old to me.
I am not certain of the exact details, but I'm fairly sure that the region, up until recently (for some definition of recently but clearly more recently than the formation of the region, possibly as recently as 10 years ago) had a policy where cities had to pay to construct sidewalks on regional roads. This kind of turf fighting led to stuff like Victoria and Highland. Of course, that was less recently than for the same policy for signage for MUTs, which was only fixed in the last 1-2 years, because apparently we have to learn everything the hard way.
Which part of Highland was it?
The western portion around Westheights Dr.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - tomh009 - 11-01-2020
(10-31-2020, 10:26 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(10-31-2020, 10:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Which part of Highland was it?
The western portion around Westheights Dr.
Yeah, I think 90s is about right for that. It had not been rebuilt in the late 80s yet.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - dtkvictim - 11-16-2020
Not sure if this is more appropriate for this thread or the roads thread, but anyways... Am I correct to assume that pedestrians have right of way at an intersection controlled by stop signs, even if there is not paint for the pedestrian crossing? I know it's just paint, but these crossings always bother me. I feel that cars yield less often without the paint, but I might just be attributing the failure to yield incorrectly (they might've done it either way). Or am I just wrong in assuming I have right of way?
If I'm correct, is there an appropriate place to contact to try and get these painted (I could probably come up with dozens I come across regularly), or is that a hopeless endeavor?
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 11-16-2020
(11-16-2020, 08:49 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: Not sure if this is more appropriate for this thread or the roads thread, but anyways... Am I correct to assume that pedestrians have right of way at an intersection controlled by stop signs, even if there is not paint for the pedestrian crossing? I know it's just paint, but these crossings always bother me. I feel that cars yield less often without the paint, but I might just be attributing the failure to yield incorrectly (they might've done it either way). Or am I just wrong in assuming I have right of way?
If I'm correct, is there an appropriate place to contact to try and get these painted (I could probably come up with dozens I come across regularly), or is that a hopeless endeavor?
Disclaimer: IANAL
My understanding is that the HTA recognizes unmarked crossings, so if the sidewalk is continuous on both sides, it's a crosswalk.
And a stop sign would qualify as a traffic control device, therefore drivers must yield to pedestrians.
So I believe you are correct that pedestrians do have the right of way (crossing the direction that drivers have the stop sign anyway).
In terms of getting them painted, I assume this is a residential area (most bigger roads will have them painted already), so I'm going to suggest speaking with your city councillor, they will probably have more luck getting staff's attention.
That being said, I have no idea how much resistance there will be to doing it, to me, it seems relatively straight forward, but I know regional staff have been resistant on all things pedestrian, but city staff tend to be more progressive in this area.
I'd be curious what crossings you are talking about though. I know in my (formerly daily) walks, I've encountered some true abominations, like this trashfire at Spadina and Ruth
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4389489,-80.4973481,3a,75y,314.07h,85.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_WIyyOA1kvHTKIiXmEN52Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
And the complete lack of any crossing at Spadina and Glen
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4382773,-80.4932219,67a,35y,303.37h,44.95t/data=!3m1!1e3
Honestly, these need more than just lines, but now I'm making it about me....lol. Crossings that could be improved with only lines I really hope would not get much resistance from staff...I know there is some small cost to it, but no engineering is required, nor any change to the legal status.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - panamaniac - 11-16-2020
(11-16-2020, 08:49 PM)Cdtkvictim Wrote: Not sure if this is more appropriate for this thread or the roads thread, but anyways... Am I correct to assume that pedestrians have right of way at an intersection controlled by stop signs, even if there is not paint for the pedestrian crossing? I know it's just paint, but these crossings always bother me. I feel that cars yield less often without the paint, but I might just be attributing the failure to yield incorrectly (they might've done it either way). Or am I just wrong in assuming I have right of way?I could be wrong, but I think the answer would be “it depends”. As a practical matter, however, the pedestrian always has right of way IF they are in the intersection (i.e. if the driver doesn’t yield, he will be at fault if he hits a pedestrian). If the pedestrian is not yet in the intersection, many drivers will yield, but I’m not sure they are legally obliged to (a marked pedestrian crossing would be a different matter).
If I'm correct, is there an appropriate place to contact to try and get these painted (I could probably come up with dozens I come across regularly), or is that a hopeless endeavor?
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 11-16-2020
(11-16-2020, 09:32 PM)panamaniac Wrote:(11-16-2020, 08:49 PM)Cdtkvictim Wrote: Not sure if this is more appropriate for this thread or the roads thread, but anyways... Am I correct to assume that pedestrians have right of way at an intersection controlled by stop signs, even if there is not paint for the pedestrian crossing? I know it's just paint, but these crossings always bother me. I feel that cars yield less often without the paint, but I might just be attributing the failure to yield incorrectly (they might've done it either way). Or am I just wrong in assuming I have right of way?I could be wrong, but I think the answer would be “it depends”. As a practical matter, however, the pedestrian always has right of way IF they are in the intersection (i.e. if the driver doesn’t yield, he will be at fault if he hits a pedestrian). If the pedestrian is not yet in the intersection, many drivers will yield, but I’m not sure the are legally obliged to (a marked pedestrian crossing would be a different matter).
If I'm correct, is there an appropriate place to contact to try and get these painted (I could probably come up with dozens I come across regularly), or is that a hopeless endeavor?
I don't think it depends.
From the HTA, section 1 general definitions:
"“crosswalk” means,
(a) that part of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or
(b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface; (“passage protégé pour piétons”)"
I would take provision a to mean that any intersection with sidewalks by definition has legal "crosswalks" in line with the sidewalks regardless of any markings on the surface of the road (markings as described in provision b).
This definition makes no distinction between these two types of crosswalks and driver legal responsibility is the same whether there are lines on the road or not. Therefore I don't believe it matters whether it is marked or not. That being said, police are probably MORE likely to (or frankly even know to) ticket a driver hitting a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk.
In terms of yielding, you might be technically correct, but again, for all crosswalks:
"Yielding to pedestrians
(7) When under this section a driver is permitted to proceed, the driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (7)."
But this provision is frankly, unpleasant for pedestrians, implying that legally you must step in front of a car in order for them to violate your right of way...kind of absurd. This is less of an issue with stop signs, where drivers are supposed to stop...of course, they often don't. I have no idea what this even says about yield signs, probably the law is inconsistent here.
But this is far from the biggest issue with our right of way laws.
I mean, just off the top of my head:
"Pedestrian crossover
Duties of driver
140 (1) When a pedestrian is crossing on the roadway within a pedestrian crossover, the driver of a vehicle approaching the crossover,
(a) shall stop before entering the crossover;
(b) shall not overtake another vehicle already stopped at the crossover; and
© shall not proceed into the crossover until the pedestrian is no longer on the roadway. 2015, c. 14, s. 39 (1)."
Requires drivers to stop only when a pedestrian is in the roadway at a crossover.
"Duty of pedestrian
(4) No pedestrian shall leave the curb or other place of safety at a pedestrian crossover and walk, run or move into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impracticable for the driver of the vehicle to comply with subsection (1). 2015, c. 14, s. 39 (2)."
Requires pedestrians not to enter a crossover while drivers are "too close to practically stop"...which means drivers don't have to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross at a crossover...despite that being what the sign, instructions, and legislative intention all say.
Another fun one:
"Duties of pedestrian when walking along highway
179 (1) Where sidewalks are not provided on a highway, a pedestrian walking along the highway shall walk on the left side thereof facing oncoming traffic and, when walking along the roadway, shall walk as close to the left edge thereof as possible. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (1).
Idem
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a pedestrian walking a bicycle in circumstances where crossing to the left side of the highway would be unsafe. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (2)."
So basically this recognizes that a pedestrian who is pushing a bicycle may not be able to safely cross to walk on the correct (left) side of the roadway when there is no sidewalk. But fails to recognize that the same situation can obviously exist for pedestrians not pushing a bicycle.
Ugh...feeling ranty tonight.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - dtkvictim - 11-16-2020
(11-16-2020, 09:06 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'd be curious what crossings you are talking about though. I know in my (formerly daily) walks, I've encountered some true abominations, like this trashfire at Spadina and Ruth
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4389489,-80.4973481,3a,75y,314.07h,85.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_WIyyOA1kvHTKIiXmEN52Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
And the complete lack of any crossing at Spadina and Glen
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4382773,-80.4932219,67a,35y,303.37h,44.95t/data=!3m1!1e3
Honestly, these need more than just lines, but now I'm making it about me....lol. Crossings that could be improved with only lines I really hope would not get much resistance from staff...I know there is some small cost to it, but no engineering is required, nor any change to the legal status.
I actually have experienced Spadina before, but I completely forgot about that. I think I ended up crossing the center island before figuring out the proper way to do it.
A few that come to mind (I'm 90% sure these are all unpainted, but I'm using Google maps to double-check so it's possible some are now if it's outdated)
- Queen St and Church St
- Duke St and Breithaupt
- All of the David St intersections south of Jubilee (Technically a residential area, but also a lot of foot traffic from the park)
- Water St S & Jubilee (Apparently this intersection exists twice, but I mean the one with the crossing)
- Water St S & Water St S (I just experienced this one today. The one curb cut is clearly for pedestrians, the other is maybe for a driveway? Not sure what to make of this one...)
- Heins Ave and Jubilee (So I guess just most of the Jubilee intersecting roads. Against residential, but park adjacent, lots of pedestrians and cars)
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 11-16-2020
(11-16-2020, 11:04 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:(11-16-2020, 09:06 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I'd be curious what crossings you are talking about though. I know in my (formerly daily) walks, I've encountered some true abominations, like this trashfire at Spadina and Ruth
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4389489,-80.4973481,3a,75y,314.07h,85.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_WIyyOA1kvHTKIiXmEN52Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
And the complete lack of any crossing at Spadina and Glen
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4382773,-80.4932219,67a,35y,303.37h,44.95t/data=!3m1!1e3
Honestly, these need more than just lines, but now I'm making it about me....lol. Crossings that could be improved with only lines I really hope would not get much resistance from staff...I know there is some small cost to it, but no engineering is required, nor any change to the legal status.
I actually have experienced Spadina before, but I completely forgot about that. I think I ended up crossing the center island before figuring out the proper way to do it.
A few that come to mind (I'm 90% sure these are all unpainted, but I'm using Google maps to double-check so it's possible some are now if it's outdated)
I don't really ever care about the lack of crossing in residential areas, but only because of low levels of traffic. It's the intersections where I frequently meet a car while crossing that bother me. It just feels like I'm doing something wrong, like I'm in the space of the cars. Paint is just a cheap, easy signal that it's a pedestrian space without having to put in raised/continuous sidewalks.
- Queen St and Church St
- Duke St and Breithaupt
- All of the David St intersections south of Jubilee (Technically a residential area, but also a lot of foot traffic from the park)
- Water St S & Jubilee (Apparently this intersection exists twice, but I mean the one with the crossing)
- Water St S & Water St S (I just experienced this one today. The one curb cut is clearly for pedestrians, the other is maybe for a driveway? Not sure what to make of this one...)
- Heins Ave and Jubilee (So I guess just most of the Jubilee intersecting roads. Against residential, but park adjacent, lots of pedestrians and cars)
Ha, I live right at Queen and Church, you're right, it doesn't have a marking...that seems like a big oversight. I never noticed because I've never crossed that way, I've always crossed Queen (I live on the other side, and like to walk through the neighbourhood, and when you have to cross Frederick, Queen is child's play---not literally sadly).
It's always amazing to me how anti-pedestrian the park is...Jubilee is a mess. For Heins I don't think they could paint a crossing, that intersection is garbage and painting it would illustrate just how terrible it is. But Theresa and Water could get one (as you mentioned, the Water crossing where there *IS* a sidewalk--did I mention this is in a park?!).
I'm not sure what the criteria that staff use for deciding to put in lines or not, I am surprised that most of those have stop bars, but no crosswalks. Certainly couldn't hurt to ask our ward councillor. Although, honestly, the list is probably pretty long.
Here's my quick attempt at fixing Heins. I mean, it's a park...I'm not sure why we are facilitating transport trucks over pedestrians.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1NCHdllPgiNtl7MafQiwtVxn2XNIrNk4q&ll=43.44758254079801%2C-80.49877387655287&z=19
(Actually, I'd love to see water connected to Heins and Jubilee itself closed, but that's a little more ambitious).
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 11-30-2020
I wasn't quite sure where to put this, but it's mostly about walking so I'm trying it here. Trevor Heywood has put together a neat site that among other things, catalogs a large number of walk around town, with a map and links to photos from each walk on twitter.
https://metroscapes.ca/kwc/walks/
Quite a bit of information here.
He also documents hydro corridors, watersheds, and neighbourhoods under "project". Not just KW, also has Toronto and Hamilton.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - ac3r - 11-30-2020
Interesting website, thanks! I've been meaning to find some neighbourhoods to explore in the city for some work I'm having to do and this could help identify some specific places I could check out.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - ac3r - 12-08-2020
Those people in Waterloo who are complaining about a sidewalk being built are, naturally, still complaining about it. They've got red ribbons tied on the trees which implies they'll be cut down for the construction (they won't be): https://outline.com/qY6FMe
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - panamaniac - 12-08-2020
Interesting that they don't seem to be getting much traction at City Hall. New money?
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - danbrotherston - 12-08-2020
(12-08-2020, 01:10 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Interesting that they don't seem to be getting much traction at City Hall. New money?
Yeah, the result was kind of surprising, rarely do sidewalks get passed with such a strong majority at council....
Again...it's just insane that people oppose sidewalks...but here we are.
Of course, it's a little more understandable when you are taxed more when you have a sidewalk...
Oh...and just in case anyone is confused, the extra tax you pay is in the form of clearing the sidewalk. It is by every economic measure, a tax.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 12-08-2020
(12-08-2020, 01:10 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Interesting that they don't seem to be getting much traction at City Hall. New money?
It is interesting. What about Waterloo vs. Kitchener? Glasgow St. is in Kitchener.
RE: Walking in Waterloo Region - ijmorlan - 12-08-2020
(12-08-2020, 01:35 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Oh...and just in case anyone is confused, the extra tax you pay is in the form of clearing the sidewalk. It is by every economic measure, a tax.
That’s a good point. This sort of issue is another reason to have the City handle sidewalk clearing. With the present woonerf-but-not-actually-designed-as-such the City does all the snow clearing; but after construction a narrow strip on one side will be expected to be cleared by the property owners on that side.