Walking in Waterloo Region

[Markster]

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.

[KevinL]

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.

[ijmorlan]

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.

[clasher]

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.

[Markster]

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.

[ijmorlan]

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?

[KevinL]

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.

[kps]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

[nms]

I wonder how the traffic on Jubilee/Park will change once King/Victoria reopens. Currently Jubilee/Park is the next closest North-South route west of King.

[danbrotherston]

I wonder how the traffic on Jubilee/Park will change once King/Victoria reopens.  Currently Jubilee/Park is the next closest North-South route west of King.

I won't make any judgement about relative traffic on Jubilee since humans are notoriously bad at it, but I will only comment that I've found traffic on that road to be a problem long before LRT construction began.

[jamincan]

I personally think they should keep it, but put in on a heavy diet. Narrower lanes, a boulevard, and cobbles, and then clear demarcations that pedestrians have the right-of-way at any point along the entire length through the park.

[MidTowner]

"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."

I think that this is a good point. Right now, given that the street bisects a park, I feel able to cross wherever I like when a gap in traffic allows. And, when I'm driving that road, I'm aware that people might be crossing at any given point. I think the speeds should be slowed (it's good than it's signed at 30, but in reality much traffic exceeds that) and people given the ability to cross wherever.

[ijmorlan]

I personally think they should keep it, but put in on a heavy diet. Narrower lanes, a boulevard, and cobbles, and then clear demarcations that pedestrians have the right-of-way at any point along the entire length through the park.

Is there any possibility of a median? In combination with your other proposals, this could provide crossing refuge space, either everywhere or in many individual locations (say, every 20-30m), which would make it even easier for pedestrian and vehicular traffic to co-exist.

[danbrotherston]

I personally think they should keep it, but put in on a heavy diet. Narrower lanes, a boulevard, and cobbles, and then clear demarcations that pedestrians have the right-of-way at any point along the entire length through the park.

Is there any possibility of a median? In combination with your other proposals, this could provide crossing refuge space, either everywhere or in many individual locations (say, every 20-30m), which would make it even easier for pedestrian and vehicular traffic to co-exist.

While this is perhaps a reasonable idea, medians (I believe refuge islands included) necessitate extremely wide lanes (4.8 meters), which would be worse than no median IMO.

I think narrow lanes, cobbles, whatever it takes to show this is a shared space should be the minimum. There'd even be room for the, by some miracle, controversial sidewalk then.