ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[KingandWeber]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

[jeffster]

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.

[taylortbb]

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.

[Rainrider22]

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..,

[ijmorlan]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

[creative]

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

[danbrotherston]

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.

[creative]

Just asking!

[plam]

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.

[WLU]

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.

[WLU]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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?

[danbrotherston]

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.