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.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 5 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Road and Highway Discussion
(12-24-2018, 11:48 PM)Canard Wrote: Thread (was telling a friend of mine from the States about some of our "quirks" here and thought I'd make a little story):

They want to keep traffic from that neighbourhood from going northbound on Wilmot Line.  I saw a diagram somewhere they were thinking of making a southbound only exit from that traffic circle but not sure how that's coming along.

That emergency exit now has an electric lift arm (solar powered) to let authorized vehicles through.  But it looks like some people have pushed their way around it as it's not exactly perpendicular anymore.

Found a google cached copy of a PDF I read on the reasoning.  Not sure if this had the diagram as it's been HTMLized: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se...clnk&gl=ca

Here's the relevant section:

8. The proposed subdivisions reflect the modified grid road system contemplated in the District Plans.  No vehicular access is provided to the Wilmot Line, with the exception of one emergency access.  Two collector roads serve as the primary roadways into the subdivisions.  The proposed roads meet municipal design standards, with grades ranging from 0.5% to 6.0%.  In order to minimize the need for the application of salt in the winter, road grades have been reduced to the greatest extent possible. Higher road grades (e.g. 6.0%) are necessary in some areas in order to minimize area grading and protect the till cap. As a condition of approval, the property owners will be required to finalize a traffic calming plan for the subdivisions to the satisfaction of Development Services, Public Works Services (Roads) and Protective Services.

The Wilmot Line is completely within the Township of Wilmot.  Decisions to modify the roadway are solely up to Wilmot Council.  The road functions as a boundary road, and as such the City of Waterloo cost-shares the maintenance of this road with the Township of Wilmot.  An objective of the West Side District Plan Review (2004) was to maintain the northern portion of the Wilmot Line as a rural gravel roadway.  To facilitate this objective, the Columbia Street I Wilmot Line intersection will be designed to restrict turning movements so that the subdivisions will not contribute to traffic on the northern portion of Wilmot Line.

The portion of the Wilmot Line south of the subdivisions will be upgraded to accommodate increased traffic volumes.  A Class Environmental Assessment (EA) is underway for this portion of the Wilmot Line as well as the intersection at Erb Street.  The subdivisions have been designed to accommodate emergency response vehicles and Grand River Transit.
Reply


Found my copy of the PDF.  There is a diagram in there:


[Image: jQ398yD.png]
Reply
Waterloo Region is looking for feedback on Road safety.  Here's the survey if you haven't seen it yet:  https://www.engagewr.ca/road-safety-education-campaign
Reply
Wasn't quite sure where this should go, it's not about the Ottawa LRT, but road investigations in general.

https://www.ottawamatters.com/local-news...no-1196247

The TSB has offered to help with the investigation, they do not have authority to do so, but they can offer. The general manager of Ottawa transportation services argued they shouldn't:

"Quite frankly I think that leads to we don't have confidence in the Ottawa Police Service and nothing could be further from the truth," Manconi said. "Those accident investigators are leading experts. They do hundreds if not thousands of accidents investigations in Ottawa, they're professionals."

This statement suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of police and collision investigators (which is no surprise coming from someone referring to it as an accident). The job of police is to determine if a law has been broken, and sometimes not even that. At this point, they're basically operating as glorified insurance adjusters for most collisions. In this case, they'll probably be more thorough than that, but they're still looking at the laws as is.

The job of a collision investigator is to figure out what circumstances lead up to the collision and if there are meaningful changes to our system (where system is the whole world) that can be made to prevent or mitigate the disaster in the future.

Most people completely fail to understand this second one, they only want to know "whose fault it was", they don't care about preventing it so long as it can be blamed on someone (and insurance companies of course only care about fault, which is why I say police basically act as insurance adjusters). I expect this from average people, but extremely disappointing coming from transportation staff.
Reply
You missed a big point Dan, The police are there to find out the truth as to what happened.  If in that process someone broke the law, then yes, charges up to including criminal charges could be laid. If criminal charges are laid, then there is an expectation through judicial proceedings that the police maintain certain investigative practices. The police must maintain carriage of the investigation until that determination is made in the interest of preserving evidence and ensuring information is not spread to the public as a result of inter-agency involvement.  Leaked information could create a bias to prospective jurors and defence could and would likely argue an unfair trial.  

After a trial, or if charges are deemed not to be laid in this particular case, there is nothing to stop other agencies from reviewing the case. Additionally, once police release the scene, there is nothing prohibiting other agencies from conducting an inquiry.   Additionally,  people died, so you cant rule out a Coroners Inquest which would provide recommendations for changes to prevent this type of incident in the future.

A motor vehicle accident does not fit the mandate of the National Transportation Bureau, as such, perhaps you should focus your attention to this point.  It would seem to me that the public would be better served if changes were made by the Federal Government with respect to  the mandate of the National Transport Bureau to investigate any commercial vehicle that is primarily used for the transportation of persons.
Reply
(Yesterday, 10:54 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: You missed a big point Dan, The police are there to find out the truth as to what happened.  If in that process someone broke the law, then yes, charges up to including criminal charges could be laid. If criminal charges are laid, then there is an expectation through judicial proceedings that the police maintain certain investigative practices. The police must maintain carriage of the investigation until that determination is made in the interest of preserving evidence and ensuring information is not spread to the public as a result of inter-agency involvement.  Leaked information could create a bias to prospective jurors and defence could and would likely argue an unfair trial.  

After a trial, or if charges are deemed not to be laid in this particular case, there is nothing to stop other agencies from reviewing the case. Additionally, once police release the scene, there is nothing prohibiting other agencies from conducting an inquiry.   Additionally,  people died, so you cant rule out a Coroners Inquest which would provide recommendations for changes to prevent this type of incident in the future.

A motor vehicle accident does not fit the mandate of the National Transportation Bureau, as such, perhaps you should focus your attention to this point.  It would seem to me that the public would be better served if changes were made by the Federal Government with respect to  the mandate of the National Transport Bureau to investigate any commercial vehicle that is primarily used for the transportation of persons.

I agree the lack of mandate is a problem, and the TSB should investigate at least all commercial transport crashes, if not all private MVCs (they already have the authority to investigate non-commercial private plane crashes, train crashes, etc.).

I'm not sure why you think I'm missing the point.  More than one entity can investigate at the same time.  In fact, the police will sometimes investigate plane crashes and other incidents as well, for example, in the case of terrorism.  The police investigate, track down, and the crown prosecutes the offenders.  But it's the TSB which could say suggest different screening methods to catch them before this happens, or changes to plane design and protocol to mitigate danger and reduce harm.  They work together, they are not opposed, and they have different roles.  "After a trial" which would be YEARS later is far far too late for an investigation, most of the evidence would be lost by then.  And the TSB is generally not going to leak data that the police don't want leaked (they already work with them on plane crashes).
Reply
(Yesterday, 11:55 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(Yesterday, 10:54 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: You missed a big point Dan, The police are there to find out the truth as to what happened.  If in that process someone broke the law, then yes, charges up to including criminal charges could be laid. If criminal charges are laid, then there is an expectation through judicial proceedings that the police maintain certain investigative practices. The police must maintain carriage of the investigation until that determination is made in the interest of preserving evidence and ensuring information is not spread to the public as a result of inter-agency involvement.  Leaked information could create a bias to prospective jurors and defence could and would likely argue an unfair trial.  

After a trial, or if charges are deemed not to be laid in this particular case, there is nothing to stop other agencies from reviewing the case. Additionally, once police release the scene, there is nothing prohibiting other agencies from conducting an inquiry.   Additionally,  people died, so you cant rule out a Coroners Inquest which would provide recommendations for changes to prevent this type of incident in the future.

A motor vehicle accident does not fit the mandate of the National Transportation Bureau, as such, perhaps you should focus your attention to this point.  It would seem to me that the public would be better served if changes were made by the Federal Government with respect to  the mandate of the National Transport Bureau to investigate any commercial vehicle that is primarily used for the transportation of persons.

I agree the lack of mandate is a problem, and the TSB should investigate at least all commercial transport crashes, if not all private MVCs (they already have the authority to investigate non-commercial private plane crashes, train crashes, etc.).

I'm not sure why you think I'm missing the point.  More than one entity can investigate at the same time.  In fact, the police will sometimes investigate plane crashes and other incidents as well, for example, in the case of terrorism.  The police investigate, track down, and the crown prosecutes the offenders.  But it's the TSB which could say suggest different screening methods to catch them before this happens, or changes to plane design and protocol to mitigate danger and reduce harm.  They work together, they are not opposed, and they have different roles.  "After a trial" which would be YEARS later is far far too late for an investigation, most of the evidence would be lost by then.  And the TSB is generally not going to leak data that the police don't want leaked (they already work with them on plane crashes).
It isn't that easy. There has to be a lead investigator that assume control, if there is any belief of criminality, then police must take the lead.  Dual agency investigations lead to a host of issues during judicial proceedings.  To safe guard the integrity of an investigation that is looking through the lens of criminal behavior severely complicates things and non police agencies need to take a back seat.  In the case of terrorism, there is a whole other set of rules that kick in under acts of parliament that I am not able to discuss, but Federal authorities (Police) again assume the lead role.  While I agree with you that there can be a level of cooperation with other "topic expert" agencies, and it may seem to be to late, it is the reality of our process and system.  e.g. If there is a fire that is suspected arson, then the Fire marshal will work with the police however, the scene is the control of police. They have the lead and write any required warrants. The Fire Marshal will only be allowed entry into the scene with police (FIS) and for the purpose of looking for evidence of how a fire was started.  Ultimately if Fire Marshall said that fire was accidental, then the investigation would be complete.  But, if they determine it is a set fire, it remains in carriage of the police... This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I think you can see there are a lot of things that the public is unaware of with the process.
Reply
And yet as an avid fan of the TV show Mayday, I can recall numerous instances where police took the lead in an investigation causing critical data that could have resulted in a proper understanding of all root causes of an accident to be lost. Personally I go with that whole "the needs of the many" argument, and would much rather see a proper investigation that results in improved safety for all rather than a narrow legal success that results in punitive damages against a limited number of parties.
...K
Reply
(Yesterday, 12:46 PM)KevinT Wrote: And yet as an avid fan of the TV show Mayday, I can recall numerous instances where police took the lead in an investigation causing critical data that could have resulted in a proper understanding of all root causes of an accident to be lost.  Personally I go with that whole "the needs of the many" argument, and would much rather see a proper investigation that results in improved safety for all rather than a narrow legal success that results in punitive damages against a limited number of parties.

This is a good point which few people seem to agree with.

Criminal investigations are almost certainly less important in this situation that a incident investigation.
Reply
(Yesterday, 12:40 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(Yesterday, 11:55 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I agree the lack of mandate is a problem, and the TSB should investigate at least all commercial transport crashes, if not all private MVCs (they already have the authority to investigate non-commercial private plane crashes, train crashes, etc.).

I'm not sure why you think I'm missing the point.  More than one entity can investigate at the same time.  In fact, the police will sometimes investigate plane crashes and other incidents as well, for example, in the case of terrorism.  The police investigate, track down, and the crown prosecutes the offenders.  But it's the TSB which could say suggest different screening methods to catch them before this happens, or changes to plane design and protocol to mitigate danger and reduce harm.  They work together, they are not opposed, and they have different roles.  "After a trial" which would be YEARS later is far far too late for an investigation, most of the evidence would be lost by then.  And the TSB is generally not going to leak data that the police don't want leaked (they already work with them on plane crashes).
It isn't that easy. There has to be a lead investigator that assume control, if there is any belief of criminality, then police must take the lead.  Dual agency investigations lead to a host of issues during judicial proceedings.  To safe guard the integrity of an investigation that is looking through the lens of criminal behavior severely complicates things and non police agencies need to take a back seat.  In the case of terrorism, there is a whole other set of rules that kick in under acts of parliament that I am not able to discuss, but Federal authorities (Police) again assume the lead role.  While I agree with you that there can be a level of cooperation with other "topic expert" agencies, and it may seem to be to late, it is the reality of our process and system.  e.g. If there is a fire that is suspected arson, then the Fire marshal will work with the police however, the scene is the control of police. They have the lead and write any required warrants. The Fire Marshal will only be allowed entry into the scene with police (FIS) and for the purpose of looking for evidence of how a fire was started.  Ultimately if Fire Marshall said that fire was accidental, then the investigation would be complete.  But, if they determine it is a set fire, it remains in carriage of the police... This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I think you can see there are a lot of things that the public is unaware of with the process.

"It's our process" should never be an excuse for keeping a broken system.

And it isn't our process here, our process is that the TSP don't have the authority to investigate, it does not say that the Ottawa transportation has to turn down their offer.
Reply
(Yesterday, 01:02 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(Yesterday, 12:40 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: It isn't that easy. There has to be a lead investigator that assume control, if there is any belief of criminality, then police must take the lead.  Dual agency investigations lead to a host of issues during judicial proceedings.  To safe guard the integrity of an investigation that is looking through the lens of criminal behavior severely complicates things and non police agencies need to take a back seat.  In the case of terrorism, there is a whole other set of rules that kick in under acts of parliament that I am not able to discuss, but Federal authorities (Police) again assume the lead role.  While I agree with you that there can be a level of cooperation with other "topic expert" agencies, and it may seem to be to late, it is the reality of our process and system.  e.g. If there is a fire that is suspected arson, then the Fire marshal will work with the police however, the scene is the control of police. They have the lead and write any required warrants. The Fire Marshal will only be allowed entry into the scene with police (FIS) and for the purpose of looking for evidence of how a fire was started.  Ultimately if Fire Marshall said that fire was accidental, then the investigation would be complete.  But, if they determine it is a set fire, it remains in carriage of the police... This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I think you can see there are a lot of things that the public is unaware of with the process.

"It's our process" should never be an excuse for keeping a broken system.

And it isn't our process here, our process is that the TSP don't have the authority to investigate, it does not say that the Ottawa transportation has to turn down their offer.
My final comment on this subject which you seem to be very knowledgeable on.  I have offered you some very high level background on why it isn't as straightforward as you think.  An investigation has to be held to a high standard.  Tell the S.C.C. that has set all the case law that the "system" is broke.  I encourage it, trust me.....
Reply
(Yesterday, 12:46 PM)KevinT Wrote: And yet as an avid fan of the TV show Mayday, I can recall numerous instances where police took the lead in an investigation causing critical data that could have resulted in a proper understanding of all root causes of an accident to be lost.  Personally I go with that whole "the needs of the many" argument, and would much rather see a proper investigation that results in improved safety for all rather than a narrow legal success that results in punitive damages against a limited number of parties.

I watch Mayday too and enjoy the show.  Many of those investigations are dated and are from countries that don't practice the same Major Case Management principals that are strictly adhered to here in Canada.
Reply
If you're implying third world, note that one of those countries is France, and recently (Concorde).
...K
Reply
This just in:

CBC News, TSB to join investigation into fatal Ottawa bus crash

Quote:The TSB will provide "technical expertise with respect to safety matters relating to this collision," and will have no role in assigning either criminal or civil fault, Chief Charles Bordeleau said at a news conference Wednesday afternoon.

Bordeleau said Ottawa police made a "formal request" for the federal agency's help.

"Our officers do amazing work. They're experts in their field. But there are certain things that the TSB does have access to ... that will help us find all the answers that we are looking for," he said.
...K
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  Highway 401 Widening - Highway 8 to Townline Road Shawn 299 104,459 01-14-2019, 10:31 AM
Last Post: timio
  Highway 401 Widening - Hespeler Road to Townline Road The85 12 8,436 11-25-2014, 08:47 PM
Last Post: Canard

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links