Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Login or Create an Account
I was down by the King Street underpass on the sidewalk, it goes south of Wellington a bit now, not quite to the plaza yet. There's no signs or anything blocking the sidewalk so there were about half a dozen people wandering around the construction site but by the time I took the picture they'd moved toward Victoria and out of the frame. I guess there aren't any open excavations anymore but hopefully it's wrapped up in a few months and traffic can start flowing again. It's such a change from what the area used to be like.
On the Ardelt pictures - interesting to see them taking advantage of the gap between the two expressway tunnels and put the TPSS in the empty wedge of land. Clever.
I, too, am concerned about the lack of sidewalk along Courtland. If the land on the far side of the track gets developed, we can expect some degree of pedestrian traffic there.
01-16-2017, 12:13 AM (This post was last modified: 01-16-2017, 12:16 AM by Canard.)
Why? If there's a sidewalk on the other side, that should be sufficient, no? There's nothing between Hayward and Block Line station on that side. It would be redundant. It would be great, for me, for railfanning... but beyond that, it would just invite people to (illegally and dangerously) cross the road and the tracks to shortcut over.
Because requiring pedestrians to cross a road twice is time consuming and a strong disincentive to either following the rules, or being a pedestrian. It's also limiting, as pointed out, if there are developments built on the other side, then they won't have sidewalk access. The redundancy argument follows for many roads with sidewalks on both side, it isn't a valid argument there either. You must think about this as a daily user, if every day, you had to wait an extra two minutes just to cross a road one way, and then back, just to get to your destination. To me, this is what is meant by "dignity" in transportation.
Frankly, I think *not* having a sidewalk invites people to walk on the tracks. I don't see how having a sidewalk would do that. As for crossing the road, it is in fact entirely legal to cross a road not at a crosswalk. But regardless, I don't think it would encourage road crossing either, if I'm *already* on the East side, there's no reason not to cross at the intersection, the issue occurs when I'm on the west side.
About sidewalks on Courtland. I think Canard's concerns are valid, if the sidewalk were built east of the tracks. If a sidewalk were to be built along there, it would need to be between Courtland and the tracks, and there just isn't room for that.
And maybe I misremember, but doesn't it drop off fairly steeply into a valley there? What is the actual likelihood of any sort of meaningful development along that side of Courtland? I think that the physical geography restricts the amount of room for infrastructure between Blockline and Hayward, and they already needed to move a lot of earth to do what has been done. That is a great expense to add sufficient width for a sidewalk alongside that track that will not see any use for the foreseeable future.
I really believe that streets should have sidewalks on both side whenever possible, but compromises do need to be made.
(01-16-2017, 12:56 AM)timc Wrote: And maybe I misremember, but doesn't it drop off fairly steeply into a valley there? What is the actual likelihood of any sort of meaningful development along that side of Courtland? I think that the physical geography restricts the amount of room for infrastructure between Blockline and Hayward, and they already needed to move a lot of earth to do what has been done. That is a great expense to add sufficient width for a sidewalk alongside that track that will not see any use for the foreseeable future.
I really believe that streets should have sidewalks on both side whenever possible, but compromises do need to be made.
Yes, exactly. I can't imagine that anything would get built here. A massive terraforming effort was required here for many months (almost a year!) just to get the topology correct for LRT. Nothing is getting built here.
I’m pretty sure development will happen here and fairly quickly. Council Galloway actual alluded to $2 million in investment already happening back in August, “@rideIONrt Block Line major private developmnt proposed integrated with LRT &new GRT terminal. $2mil yesterdy #wrLRT”. For one thing it is a prime location near LRT and highway access and there would be very little excavation required being that it is the side of a hill. Based on all the “future state” renderings early on in the Ion consultation process that is what was hoped and intended for as well:
As for the trail/sidewalk, the City of Kitchener got a grant last year from the province to formalize the trail on the west side of Courtland from Mill to Hayward. It seems ridiculous that another 1.5m-3.0m of space could not be found to continue it up to the station.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Development wouldn't necessary have to change topology. Given the location, no matter the LRT station, there's going to be parking, it would be feasible for a developer to build a parking garage into the hill, and start the building at street level. Maybe even cheaper than underground parking.
But for me, I think the big issue is people who work on Hayward, who will now have to cross twice to get to the LRT station on the same side of the road as they work.
I agree compromises should be made, but next to an LRT station, that compromise should be for cars, not pedestrians and cyclists.
I will admit that I appreciated the addition of the statement "similar to the iXpress ones", as I was unsure what specifically "ghastly low-resolution Red-LED affairs, from like 1987" meant!
Glad for the clarification. The original description made me think of something like this:
(01-13-2017, 12:08 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Man do I hate it when people park on the sidewalk!
Actually, to me, it looks like they're in the parking!
Agreed. Despite two wheels being on the sidewalk, there appears to be ample room for a wheelchair/stroller to get by, and therefore, unlikely for enforcement action. If I recall correctly, prior to the LRT construction, there were actually paved parking spaces between the sidewalk and the building at this location.
16-pixel one-line displays might be double the vertical resolution of the current crop of wayside passenger information. INIT doesn't show our _specific_ display on their (unfortunately-unhelpful and rather dated-looking) website, but their "on the bus" display, at 7 vertical pixels, looks to be suitably similar to all the displays I've seen in bus shelters across the GRT network.
(01-16-2017, 03:22 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: Agreed. Despite two wheels being on the sidewalk, there appears to be ample room for a wheelchair/stroller to get by, and therefore, unlikely for enforcement action. If I recall correctly, prior to the LRT construction, there were actually paved parking spaces between the sidewalk and the building at this location.
Coke
Is this really the case? It seems like enforcement is highly erratic here. A friend of mine got a ticket for parking on the sidewalk when his back bumper was hanging less than 6 inches over the sidewalk in my driveway.
Other's have told me, "wheels on sidewalk == ticket".
Do you know what the actual policy is?
I actually tried to call in a pickup truck in the Spur Line Crossing plaza with a hitch blocking more than half the trail.
(01-13-2017, 12:30 PM)Markster Wrote: Actually, to me, it looks like they're in the parking!
Agreed. Despite two wheels being on the sidewalk, there appears to be ample room for a wheelchair/stroller to get by, and therefore, unlikely for enforcement action. If I recall correctly, prior to the LRT construction, there were actually paved parking spaces between the sidewalk and the building at this location.
Coke
I am actually making a joke about the etymology of "parking". They are clearly encroaching on the sidewalk, and given the age of the Tannery, it's possible that is a city owned boulevard, which is also a no-parking zone.
