ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Canard]

^ Agreed on all counts! Hear, hear! Where is the CBC article?

[Markster]

Just putting warning tickets on the windshields will go a long way to stopping the behaviour.
There's clearly a sense of "crowd immunity"; people park there because they see others park there safely and without penalty. Few of those people would likely choose to be the first person to park there on a given day, but they will happily be the 5th.

Once people start seeing paper on windshields, I'm sure news will spread like wildfire in The Tannery to stop.

[Canard]

I almost posted last night that I was very tempted to print my own "Please don't do this, here's why!" sheets to put on people's windshields.

If I come up with something, I'll PDF it for others to use, too...

[timc]

I don't think it's a good idea to put papers on people's windshields. That is not your job, and just results in more litter.

[Markster]

I don't see anything terribly wrong with doing it. Though, after an initial shock and probably some anger, people will likely just brush it off and keep parking there, because the paper isn't official in any way.

[Viewfromthe42]

The bigger concern from that photo is that The Tannery and/or Communitech are encouraging this illegal parking, as that section of the rapidway was plowed professionally. That's a very worthwhile conversation for the region to have with their favourite golden child.

[Canard]

I don't think it's a good idea to put papers on people's windshields. That is not your job, and just results in more litter.

There are far worse alternatives.

(That being said - I absolutely haaaaaaaaaaaaaaate hatehatehate when people advertising stuff touch my car and put stuff under the wiper. I go out of my way to actively avoid patronizing those businesses who do that. So I'd be a pretty big hypocrite doing that to someone else - even though they're in the wrong!)

I don't really like the idea of doing nothing. I fear we'll watch the system hiccup and have fits during service start-up, and risk delaying opening even further, while they try and figure out how to deal with the problem at that time.

That's why I thought notices might be a good idea, to start, if Bylaw isn't going to pick up the ball and start ticketing.

I also fully appreciate that this all has a very strong air of busy-bodying and I kind of hate that, but I also hate that people are abusing my lovely little tramway even before it's had a chance to shine.

[Viewfromthe42]

I'd just apply a logical exercise. I may dislike it if someone puts something under my windshield wiper. I also understand that if I park illegally and get a ticket or a warning, I'm definitely in the wrong, and will get something under there, and quite deservedly. If someone saw another car hitting mine and left a note with witness contact information, I'd be more appreciative of that than a surprise broken light and no idea where to go. So if you park on the tramway, you're already inviting a very legitimate interference with your wiper (let alone a tow truck), so public notices like yours shouldn't be a surprise, especially since they don't come with the fine of the ones bylaw would deliver. That said, practice the obvious: don't abuse the wiper, lift gently, from the arm hinge point, and lower it back down gently.

[Canard]

So if you park on the tramway, you're already inviting a very legitimate interference with your wiper

I think the interference potential being invited is far greater than that.

Obv. yes and agreed on all points above.

Maybe they(bylaw)'ll wait until a month before urban testing (realistically: Q3 2017) begins and then start laying down the law, in order to avoid the risk of lots of negative public backlash in the likes of "Well this space is just sitting here doing nothing anyway, why can't I?"

(Which, I have to state, I hate and don't agree with at all - rules are rules - but am just saying I could imagine that's what the people who are parking there might fire back with.)

[Coke6pk]

I'd just apply a logical exercise. I may dislike it if someone puts something under my windshield wiper. I also understand that if I park illegally and get a ticket or a warning, I'm definitely in the wrong, and will get something under there, and quite deservedly. If someone saw another car hitting mine and left a note with witness contact information, I'd be more appreciative of that than a surprise broken light and no idea where to go. So if you park on the tramway, you're already inviting a very legitimate interference with your wiper (let alone a tow truck), so public notices like yours shouldn't be a surprise, especially since they don't come with the fine of the ones bylaw would deliver. That said, practice the obvious: don't abuse the wiper, lift gently, from the arm hinge point, and lower it back down gently.

OK, Former by-law officer reporting for duty!    First and foremost, 99.99999% of people who know they were parking in the wrong will NOT feel anything placed under their windshield was done so deservedly.  I've worked many law enforcement jobs, and by-law was where I was assaulted the majority of times!  (We) feel empowered as drivers to have the "right" to do whatever we want with our automobiles, and don't appreciate being told otherwise.  The cyclists/pedestrians on the board will agree with me I'm sure.  [I am at most times an auto driver as well, I can see my faults and will own up to them!  I am NOT car bashing!]

Anyway, since we (meter maids) are so hated, I guarantee that if you got a ticket, we will have never touched your wiper blade [Unless it was frozen to the windshield].  A folded ticket slid at the bottom of the "U" will glide nicely under the blade, and I will not have to deal with the complaint of "I have no problem paying the $20 ticket, but I want $50 for new wipers" argument.  I'm sure the flyer stuffers do the same thing to avoid any liability.  I'd cringe if I ever saw anyone lifting blade arms, even gently.

Back on topic... a warning letter will do very little to nothing.  For enforcement to work, you need punitive damage [Fines] and threats work to a degree (ie. TOW AWAY ZONE... but if no one is ever towed, the threat is useless).  While it may make bystanders happy to see a vehicle towed, and the driver has the inconvenience of having to go pick up a car at a different location, it doesn't necessarily ensure compliance in the future.  Towing is to open an immediate need [ie Rush Hour traffic lane, LRT tracks when in operation, Fire Route, Snow Clearing, etc.]  To tow (off a city street) just to punish is not an acceptable practice anywhere that I am aware of.  Furthermore on towing, the city by-laws here in the region have set fines attached.  Tows are not part of the process.  If a vehicle is to be towed, it is at the expense of the requestor.  [ie. Property owner needs their spot back, they can elect to pay for a tow to have the vehicle removed.  When I towed from city streets here, it was at the city's expense to permit snow clearing / clear road access for safety].  (This is obviously different from the rules in places like Toronto/Mississauga/Brampton where towing is a part of the parking by-law, and set rates allowed to be charged, and liens placed on the vehicle until tow bill is paid)

Lastly to round out my XL post, all Regional parking by-laws were enforced by the city by-law officers when I worked there... so in the case of the Tannery (or the 5 cars on the tracks in front of the Duke Food Block I saw this morning), contact CoK and complain to them.  The No Parking signs posted will be sufficient for them to tag under the Region's by-law.

Coke

[Canard]

Thanks for that very informative reply, Coke!

City of Kitchener bylaw was not aware of any new bylaws as of Tuesday, and instead directed me to the Region. One person at the Region gave me the correct bylaw, and another wrote and said there are no new bylaws.

So, sounds like nobody really knows what's going on (except you!).

[Coke6pk]

Thanks for that very informative reply, Coke!

City of Kitchener bylaw was not aware of any new bylaws as of Tuesday, and instead directed me to the Region. One person at the Region gave me the correct bylaw, and another wrote and said there are no new bylaws.

So, sounds like nobody really knows what's going on (except you!).

I "like" to think so.... LOL

Putting up a no-parking sign does not make it a "Prohibited Area" under the by-law.  If you go to the Regional Courthouse (77 Queen), at the front are stacks of binders of the actual full by-laws regulations.  They will read something like "No parking will be permitted on the north side of King Street in the City of Kitchener from a point 9 m west of Queen Street to a point 9 m east of Ontario Street."  (It is illegal to park 9m from any intersection, so those don't fall into the No Parking section, as they don't need to be signed).  These continue for every block, each side of the street, for every street in the region that has a no parking sign.  If someone ever contested the legality of the sign, the binders are their for the prosecutors use, but are too heavy to carry in/out each week for trials.  Council approves all of these.  In the same way, every Handicapped Space and Fire Route are detailed in these regulations, normally with maps showing highlighted areas. 

When you call the city, they will not know a new street was added, and they would definitely say a new by-law wasn't added, but with a new regulation added, a new street would have to be listed before those no parking signs were posted.

I will ASSUMEthat all areas that currently have track will have been added to the city regulations under the "Park in a Prohibited Area" by-law, and adding "light rail tracks" to the by-law wording is for court clarification, but will not change the fact that a city or regional council approved those detailed areas as a place where parking was not allowed.

If the by-law officer shows up at the Tannery with their computerized ticket machine, they enter street and (normally) nearby street number and the computer decides if it is the city or regional by-law being enforced.  If it is not a valid location (ie. I printed my own No Parking signs and put them up on my street), the machine will give by-law an error message.  If there are clear no parking signs the officer will report the issue so that a) Signs are removed or b) Council adds that section to the regulations.  If the officer is creative, they can see if any other sections of the Regional Traffic By-Law apply.  [Park within 15m of a railway crossing, Park Obstruct Traffic, more than 0.15 m from curb...  ] 

Coke

EDIT: Since the tracks are marked as diamond lanes, I wonder if they will use 3.(a)(xviii) - Within a reserved lane during the hours and days that the reserved lane is in effect.  I think on the tickets it printed as "Park in a Bicycle Lane", but that may have been updated.

[Canard]

Just go up a few posts and look at the bylaw I quoted. No signs are required (just a courtesy, really); all tracks are off-limits to stopping and parking. It's pretty clear!

[Viewfromthe42]

True, but that might mean a different input is required. If it's an automated system where tickets are punched in typically by an address or a blanket condition (within 9m of an intersection), there would need to be an update to include "blocking the rapidway" or some such, and both the bylaw people on the phone and on the ground would need to be made aware of it.

[danbrotherston]

@Coke6pk  That's all very interesting, and you've brought up a number of issues.

As Canard pointed out, the bylaws have been amended (as of Jan 1) to explicitly prohibit parking (or stopping, or even driving) on the rapidway.  That should be sufficient.

However, at least every time I've called (and that's frequently), I am told that in order for them to ticket a car parked in a bike lane, there must be no parking signs as well, which clearly isn't required, legally, and yet that seems to be the policy.

On the other hand, I asked for no parking signs at the trail crossing at Gage because cars and trucks frequently park there (too close) blocking line of sight. I was told that bylaw would enforce that if I called, even without signs, but other officers told me they didn't think that was against the bylaw at all.

It seems there needs to be some education of city staff on these specific issues.

Further, I'm surprised and frustrated by the requirement to have a bylaw actually written for no parking.  Why not just a bylaw saying "no parking allowed where signs indicate no parking allowed, the following is an inexhaustive list of locations that should have no parking signs...." after all, it is the sign that matters, that justifies that someone shouldn't park there.  If there's no sign, they have no reason to believe they shouldn't, if there is a sign, they have no reason to believe they should.  So the sign is what should matter.  Logically.

And you're absolutely right about entitlement of drivers, IMO, it's the most frustrating thing about our roads, and probably the hardest thing to change.  

Frankly, I think the city should take a hard line on this.  Giving too much leeway only reinforced the entitlement.