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. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Walking in Waterloo Region
(04-27-2017, 07:52 PM)KevinL Wrote: A reminder that Jane's Walks happen this weekend! Some tomorrow, most on Saturday or Sunday. Find a walk you'd be interested in here: http://janeswalk.org/canada/waterloo-region/

Next weekend, not this one!
Reply
That's what I get for posting after Midnight! Fixed it, thanks.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
Well, this is kind of an interesting (and unfortunate) situation...

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1126470

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1126863
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(05-17-2017, 07:22 PM)Canard Wrote: Well, this is kind of an interesting (and unfortunate) situation...

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1126470

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1126863

The most ridiculous bit was the railway company questioning whether it’s legal to cross there. Guess what guys, it’s the sidewalk on a road which crosses the tracks. It can’t (reasonably) be legal for the road crossing to be legal but the sidewalk crossing to be illegal. Basically, they’re questioning whether it’s legal to cross the tracks at a designated level crossing with lights, which is absurd on its face. Also, more double standard — note that the road part of the crossing is basically fine, if not the smoothest crossing in the city. Only the sidewalk is a problem.
Reply
Is there a non-video link? It wants me to install Flash, and doesn't even offer a headline to clue me in to what is going on.
Reply
/\ Yeah. I can't ever play CTV videos with sound. Get video, but no audio. CBC, no problem.

I stay committed to my Blackberry. Smile
Reply
There's a railway crossing at Bleams Rd, where the sidewalk just feebly ends feet from the tracks, and then the tracks are well raised above the compacted dirt, and then a few metres on the other side, the sidewalk begins again.

A man who uses a mobility scooter had a wipeout there, because there is no reasonable way to cross, or even, to get on to the road (which would be pretty dangerous itself), so he complained to the city and region.

The railway (GEXR) has topped up the tracks with some rather shoddily installed asphalt, so it's possible to cross, but the Region has put a barricade across the sidewalk to indicate it is closed. There is no alternate sidewalk.
Reply
How many times have I rode the Route 12 bus past here and wondered at that? More than I can count.

This had to come to a head eventually, especially once the Fallowfield neighbourhood was built.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
Markster’s summary is very good. Here’s the location:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Bleams+...3019?hl=en

Unfortunately I don’t see the button to get an exact link to what I was looking at when I copied that out of the URL bar. I had it arranged so I was looking down the tracks right at the offending section of sidewalk.
Reply
The legality thing seems ridiculous on the surface. how this got missed when the sidewalks were built needs to be addressed so it doesn't happen again. The city should also get working on connecting the blazer creek trail all the way down to Manitou, it would be a nice safe alternative for some trips.
Reply
(05-18-2017, 11:14 AM)clasher Wrote: how this got missed when the sidewalks were built needs to be addressed so it doesn't happen again.

Fiefdoms.
Everything in the rail right-of-way is maintained by the railroad, or in conjunction with the railway company.
The sidedwalks end on either side, because it is a bureaucratic nightmare to deal with them. The region (or city, whichever) built all they could.
Reply
(05-18-2017, 01:17 PM)Markster Wrote:
(05-18-2017, 11:14 AM)clasher Wrote: how this got missed when the sidewalks were built needs to be addressed so it doesn't happen again.

Fiefdoms.
Everything in the rail right-of-way is maintained by the railroad, or in conjunction with the railway company.
The sidedwalks end on either side, because it is a bureaucratic nightmare to deal with them.  The region (or city, whichever) built all they could.

All they “could”? Colour me unimpressed. They could build/repave/whatever the road, they can do the same with the sidewalk. Anyway, I doubt they have a choice. How can the current situation not be an AODA violation?
Reply
I imagine this dates back to when Bleams was a simple country road with no sidewalks; the municiplaity was permitted road clearance, but at the time there were no sidewalks or need for them.

Years later, sidewalks are built, but must stop just short of the tracks on each side as there is no agreement covering them, and it's far too much hassle to get them added.

Another stretch of years later, sidewalks are recognized as vital for acessibility but this segment is still not bridged due to simple bureaucratic inertia. Such is the way of things.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
(05-18-2017, 06:12 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Unfortunately I don’t see the button to get an exact link to what I was looking at when I copied that out of the URL bar. I had it arranged so I was looking down the tracks right at the offending section of sidewalk.

Until they change it again, look for “Share or embed image” under the “⋮” menu.
Reply
The CoK is coming to committee with a proposal to put an L2 PXO in Victoria Park:

https://www.kitchener.ca/en/Calendar/Dow...4ce3a5cdec

While I'm not looking to re-open the debate on whether Jubilee Dr. should exist or not, this type of thing indicates to me major problems with how the road functions, as well as how the L2 PXO legislation is written.

First, the legislation, it seems to be splitting the difference between an urban and suburban context. In an urban context (like within a park) 200 meters is far too much separation between crossings. The city seems willing to skirt the difference here by 20 meters, but other warranted crossings are much closer. It seems like the legislation should have deferred to the context of the road instead of setting hard limits. Additionally, crossings may be warranted at locations close to other intersections, and there is no way to accommodate this right now. This can be seen on many other trail crossings which are simply offset from the next intersection by less than 200 meters (most of the IHT crossings are like this). Thus, the legislation seems to have some serious limitations.

Second, the park road. I believe it's very clear there are problems with the road through the park. Again, I don't wish to open the debate, but I am concerned that putting in one well marked crossing will make the others even more difficult, because drivers (and pedestrians) will begin to believe that only one crossing is legitimate or legal. In reality, I think the road as whole must change in some way.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)