ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[creative]

The fence could also protect from potential attackers hiding between/behind cars parked next to the fence!

[danbrotherston]

The fence could also protect from potential attackers hiding between/behind cars parked next to the fence!

You're being contrarian. An attacker does not need to hide, an attacker can "hide" as just another person walking up this fenced in area.

Having a confined area increases the risk. It's why humans have an aversion to confined spaces like this.

And it's literally one of the reasons I preferred a level crossing to a tunnel.

[ijmorlan]

The problem is bigger than "one" obstacle, the problem is everyone being complicit in the broken system.

Very true.

It occurs to me that you never hear the designer of one of these things say something like “yes, you’re absolutely right, but unfortunately I am required to follow paragraph 54.3 of the planning code, which says …”.

[ijmorlan]

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.

Which, thanks to our absurd parking minima, is a fantasy scenario. When would the bank parking lot be full so that a bank customer would park at PartSource?

[ijmorlan]

The fence could also protect from potential attackers hiding between/behind cars parked next to the fence!

You're being contrarian.

No, he’s being …

creative!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

[jeffster]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I don't believe that this fence was built to be anti-pedestrian. I am sure that there was a good reason for it, whether or not it was right reason, that's a different discussion.

I still believe it was built to avoid the potential for pedestrians (namely, young children) from being injured. Whether that is the reason, I don't know.

My second guess is that city property has to be fenced off from business/residential/industrial/etc in general. I can't think of any city properties that are attached to other properties without fencing.

[danbrotherston]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I don't believe that this fence was built to be anti-pedestrian. I am sure that there was a good reason for it, whether or not it was right reason, that's a different discussion.

I still believe it was built to avoid the potential for pedestrians (namely, young children) from being injured. Whether that is the reason, I don't know.

My second guess is that city property has to be fenced off from business/residential/industrial/etc in general. I can't think of any city properties that are attached to other properties without fencing.

You honestly believe this was built for the benefit of pedestrians using the infrastructure? I have never said it was built TO be anti-pedestrian, but it absolutely *IS* anti-pedestrian, and was built IN SPITE of being anti-pedestrian, because pedestrian convenience and safety is not a priority in our society. But if you honestly believe it is supposed to benefit pedestrians than we are far far far away from an agreement here.

You can't think of any city properties attached to other properties without fencing? How about every single road and sidewalk in the city? Why isn't every sidewalk fenced in? Being next to a road is vastly more dangerous for pedestrians especially young children than a parking lot.

[jeffster]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I don't believe that this fence was built to be anti-pedestrian. I am sure that there was a good reason for it, whether or not it was right reason, that's a different discussion.

I still believe it was built to avoid the potential for pedestrians (namely, young children) from being injured. Whether that is the reason, I don't know.

My second guess is that city property has to be fenced off from business/residential/industrial/etc in general. I can't think of any city properties that are attached to other properties without fencing.

You honestly believe this was built for the benefit of pedestrians using the infrastructure? I have never said it was built TO be anti-pedestrian, but it absolutely *IS* anti-pedestrian, and was built IN SPITE of being anti-pedestrian, because pedestrian convenience and safety is not a priority in our society. But if you honestly believe it is supposed to benefit pedestrians than we are far far far away from an agreement here.

You can't think of any city properties attached to other properties without fencing? How about every single road and sidewalk in the city? Why isn't every sidewalk fenced in? Being next to a road is vastly more dangerous for pedestrians especially young children than a parking lot.

I think you need some anger management.

If you read my post, which apparently you didn't -- I said 1) it was built as a safety feature - young children tend to run away form there parents. Do we want parents chasing kids as soon as they're finished crossing the track?

2) This might be news to you, but sidewalks are NOT city property. This is why YOU have to shovel your sidewalk. And it's a dumb suggestion either way, because how the hell would cars go into their driveway? Parking lots? How could any business receive goods? I also said that it was fenced when city property hits private properties. Point to me any city property (a building or perhaps even a park) that is not fenced against a private property. I can't think of any.

Get your head out to the anti-pedestrian agenda you feel that the government has and car owners are horrible people for just a moment. It's not normal.

[Bob_McBob]

This might be news to you, but sidewalks are NOT city property. This is why YOU have to shovel your sidewalk.

Huh? Almost all sidewalks are municipal property, especially in residential areas.

[danbrotherston]

You honestly believe this was built for the benefit of pedestrians using the infrastructure? I have never said it was built TO be anti-pedestrian, but it absolutely *IS* anti-pedestrian, and was built IN SPITE of being anti-pedestrian, because pedestrian convenience and safety is not a priority in our society. But if you honestly believe it is supposed to benefit pedestrians than we are far far far away from an agreement here.

You can't think of any city properties attached to other properties without fencing? How about every single road and sidewalk in the city? Why isn't every sidewalk fenced in? Being next to a road is vastly more dangerous for pedestrians especially young children than a parking lot.

I think you need some anger management.

If you read my post, which apparently you didn't -- I said 1) it was built as a safety feature - young children tend to run away form there parents. Do we want parents chasing kids as soon as they're finished crossing the track?

2) This might be news to you, but sidewalks are NOT city property. This is why YOU have to shovel your sidewalk. And it's a dumb suggestion either way, because how the hell would cars go into their driveway? Parking lots? How could any business receive goods? I also said that it was fenced when city property hits private properties. Point to me any city property (a building or perhaps even a park) that is not fenced against a private property. I can't think of any.

Get your head out to the anti-pedestrian agenda you feel that the government has and car owners are horrible people for just a moment. It's not normal.

*sigh*..okay, where to start.

1. City sidewalks ARE city property, just because you have to shovel them does not mean they aren't. This isn't controversial, this is literally very explicitly laid out in our laws, feel free to check the boundaries of your property in the city's publicly accessible property database. Yes, I'm not saying sidewalks should be fenced, its your absurd suggestion that all city property is fenced that I'm objecting too. Roads are also city property (you don't have to shovel them) but they fenced.  So can you drop this ridiculous notion yet?

2. I did read your comment, and I do understand that you say it's a safety feature, I'm telling you, you I feel you are wrong, and absolutely absurd to believe so.

3. I don't think car owners are "terrible", and that is totally unrelated to the point here.

4. If I needed anger management, I wouldn't be having this calm if incredibly frustrating conversation with you, and frankly, your comment is intended to inflame the situation, and is a personal attack.

[KevinL]

I will say this - nearly all trails in our area that are 'cut throughs', as in wedged between two immediately facing private properties, are fenced in.

The difference here is twofold; the trail property is extremely narrow with no buffer space either side of the sidewalk, and the adjoining properties are commercial and would normally (and did previously) have open passage between them. Both those factors are good arguments for forgoing the fence, which the city seems to have not given proper consideration.

Of course, the entire lack of an access point in the first place comes from lack of municipal consideration of the local needs here, so I guess the irony is compounded.

[danbrotherston]

I will say this - nearly all trails in our area that are 'cut throughs', as in wedged between two immediately facing private properties, are fenced in.

The difference here is twofold; the trail property is extremely narrow with no buffer space either side of the sidewalk, and the adjoining properties are commercial and would normally (and did previously) have open passage between them. Both those factors are good arguments for forgoing the fence, which the city seems to have not given proper consideration.

Of course, the entire lack of an access point in the first place comes from lack of municipal consideration of the local needs here, so I guess the irony is compounded.

I mean, a trail through a residential property which the public is not intended to access I think is clearly a different situation. Sidewalks which abut the rear side of residential properties also generally have fences, this is not usually the case for commercial properties, even at the rear or side of said properties.

Even when we are talking about a residential property however, there is generally not a fence on both side of the sidewalk.

For the record, this is the THIRD case where the LRT has caused an entirely fenced in sidewalk, and those are the ONLY three examples I am aware of in the entire city.

It's also interesting how, much of the talk around this suggested it was intended for use by cyclists, but the fencing and sidewalk make it abundantly clear that is not a considered use case. After all, this is the region which won't put so much as a CURB between a cycle lane and cars.

[tomh009]

I should note that the "sidewalk" leading to the crossing is not really a sidewalk in the usual sense of the word, on the side of a street or road. In spite of the way it has been built, it's much more like a trail crossing a section of private property, as Kevin implied.

Given that this was previously private property, it's quite possible that the construction (including fencing) parameters were dictated by the purchase agreement that the city made with the property owners. (I would also have preferred this to be wider, but I expect the city would have had to pay substantially more to get a, say, 3m-wide path.)

[ijmorlan]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I don't believe that this fence was built to be anti-pedestrian. I am sure that there was a good reason for it, whether or not it was right reason, that's a different discussion.

I find your lack of faithlessness disturbing.

We’ve seen enough clearly dumb planning decisions that it is naive to assume that there must be a good reason for something.

That doesn’t mean there definitely isn’t a good reason, but if there is one somebody should be able to find it. The safety stuff that has been thrown around makes little to no sense.

I think the truth is probably a combination of lack of thought, default design guidelines, and possibly even some externally-imposed requirements.

[jeffster]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I don't believe that this fence was built to be anti-pedestrian. I am sure that there was a good reason for it, whether or not it was right reason, that's a different discussion.

I find your lack of faithlessness disturbing.

We’ve seen enough clearly dumb planning decisions that it is naive to assume that there must be a good reason for something.

That doesn’t mean there definitely isn’t a good reason, but if there is one somebody should be able to find it. The safety stuff that has been thrown around makes little to no sense.

I think the truth is probably a combination of lack of thought, default design guidelines, and possibly even some externally-imposed requirements.

My ultimate guess is that because it's city property between two businesses (as opposed to being against a city road or blvd) it needs to be fenced in for legal reason.

Fair warning, I am not a litigator.

If people are hell bent on figuring this out, I can email someone at city hall to ask, since apparently this is city owned. I'm just not sure who to email (as we have something like 47 different services), nor what exactly I should be asking.