ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

Oh FFS...stupid f***ing fence...

Honestly, we don't have fences like that on sidewalks, nothing more than spending money to make ped infra less convenient, more oppressive and more dangerous (from a social safety perspective)....who does this, and why are they so bad at their jobs.

Edit: Also the sidewalk transition is terrible, and the accessibility plates make zero sense.

Yes, we do have fences like that on sidewalks where they run between properties.

Not on commercial properties.

[danbrotherston]

I suspect the city or Region purchased that portion of property where the fence is along the walk way.  They need to keep it separate to mitigate risk and to appease insurance companies.  The city wouldn't just spend money on a fence for no reason. Often there are rules and regulations that the lay person isn't aware of.

I am absolutely aware of those issues, it does not change the fact that this is an anti-pedestrian idiotic policy that has resulted in money being spent to make the city worse, and that people who were actually dedicated to making this as good as it can be would have pushed for a better less expensive, less stupid situation.

This adds 100 meters to anyone walking to any of those stores, for no legitimate reason whatsowever, those properties are open to the public, there is no restricted property being protected, as there would be in a residential setting, this is the type of thing that fiscal conservatives and urban activists alike should be pissed off about. Such an idiotic waste...

Yes, not the biggest issue, but few things are so clearly stupid as this.

[Rainrider22]

I suspect the city or Region purchased that portion of property where the fence is along the walk way.  They need to keep it separate to mitigate risk and to appease insurance companies.  The city wouldn't just spend money on a fence for no reason. Often there are rules and regulations that the lay person isn't aware of.

I am absolutely aware of those issues, it does not change the fact that this is an anti-pedestrian idiotic policy that has resulted in money being spent to make the city worse, and that people who were actually dedicated to making this as good as it can be would have pushed for a better less expensive, less stupid situation.

This adds 100 meters to anyone walking to any of those stores, for no legitimate reason whatsowever, those properties are open to the public, there is no restricted property being protected, as there would be in a residential setting, this is the type of thing that fiscal conservatives and urban activists alike should be pissed off about. Such an idiotic waste...

Yes, not the biggest issue, but few things are so clearly stupid as this.

The walkway is not intended for people just accessing the immediate bushiness on both sides, it is for all public.  Businesses need to take measures to mitigate risk in their parking lots for insurance purposes.  If someone slips and falls on the businesses property because they were walking across the parking lot solely for the purpose to access the track crossing, the business can be sued and found at fault if they are deemed to have not taken appropriate measures.  I am sure part of the negotiations with the land owner and region was to place measures that would keep pedestrians off the businesses property. It is a small inconvenience for a few people who might want to access the businesses verses all the other people utilizing the crossing to access all of Fairway Road businesses.  That being said, at least they did something for the pedestrians in the neighbourhood ....

[danbrotherston]

I am absolutely aware of those issues, it does not change the fact that this is an anti-pedestrian idiotic policy that has resulted in money being spent to make the city worse, and that people who were actually dedicated to making this as good as it can be would have pushed for a better less expensive, less stupid situation.

This adds 100 meters to anyone walking to any of those stores, for no legitimate reason whatsowever, those properties are open to the public, there is no restricted property being protected, as there would be in a residential setting, this is the type of thing that fiscal conservatives and urban activists alike should be pissed off about. Such an idiotic waste...

Yes, not the biggest issue, but few things are so clearly stupid as this.

The walkway is not intended for people just accessing the immediate bushiness on both sides, it is for all public.  Businesses need to take measures to mitigate risk in their parking lots for insurance purposes.  If someone slips and falls on the businesses property because they were walking across the parking lot solely for the purpose to access the track crossing, the business can be sued and found at fault if they are deemed to have not taken appropriate measures.  I am sure part of the negotiations with the land owner and region was to place measures that would keep pedestrians off the businesses property. It is a small inconvenience for a few people who might want to access the businesses verses all the other people utilizing the crossing to access all of Fairway Road businesses.  That being said, at least they did something for the pedestrians in the neighbourhood ....

You're missing the point, I don't care WHY we have chosen to make our world shittier for pedestrians, I care THAT we have made our world shittier for pedestrians.  This has just been one continuous quagmire, this whole area is intentionally designed to be unpleasant for pedestrians, we aren't making it better or doing something good, by building this in this way, we're merely returning to the previous broken status quo.

I'm not saying I would prefer no crossing---that is clearly worse, I'm saying that the whole situation is intolerable and we are continuing to keep the intolerable situation by doing things like this.

I wonder how many "urbanists" who do have cars, truly understand how oppressive and unpleasant that area of the city is for pedestrians. It isn't something you experience, unless you make an effort to do so, and those who do have cars, would probably, rightly choose to drive to those businesses. I have walked to them before, many areas of the city are designed exclusively around the car, and are difficult and time consuming to navigate without a car. This area is another level, it is unpleasant and oppressive feeling as a pedestrian, few other places in the city have felt dangerous in the same way.

[Rainrider22]

I am not missing the point. I actually addressed one of your points. You said "there is no legitimate reason whatsoever". I provided you with just one legitimate reason and I am confident there are many more reasons. If you don't like the rules and laws of engagement then advocate for change through the proper channels but don't arbitrarily say that the people are bad at their jobs. I suspect they followed the rules, and built this to conform with the rules to protect the public and the organization they work for. That means they actually did a good job.

[danbrotherston]

I think this is on point.

https://www.kitchenertoday.com/police-be...un-2294760

[danbrotherston]

I am not missing the point.  I actually addressed one of your points.  You said "there is no legitimate reason whatsoever". I provided you with just one legitimate reason and I am confident there are many more reasons.  If you don't like the rules and laws of engagement then advocate for change through the proper channels but don't arbitrarily say that the people are bad at their jobs.  I suspect they followed the rules, and built this to conform with the rules to protect the public and the organization they work for.  That means they actually did a good job.

No, those are excuses. Reasons would be things like, the pedestrians actually want to go this way, and the fences protect private property of some kind.

Neither of those are true.  I don't consider fear of litigation or other excuses as actual reasons why the world should be bad, those are just systems that we invented to govern ourselves descending into dysfunction.

The rules are open to interpretation, there is no law which says there must be a fence there, there might be a policy, there might have been a request, it would be the job of the people building it to push back against those things which make it worse. We do this reliably with roads....we rarely ever do it for pedestrians.

[Rainrider22]

You are wrong. There are Rules and Regulations set out to follow for a reason. Most rules were not created out of something good. They were created out of necessity because something bad happened. Mitigating risk to others is never a bad thing even if it means you have to walk to the end of a pathway to get to where you want to go.

[jamincan]

There are other examples of walkways adjacent to commercial properties that aren't fenced off, but there are also lots, probably the majority, of examples where they are fenced off. I agree with Dan that this is actually a fairly significant safety issue as it can prevent escape for a potential victim. In comparison, it's hard for me to believe that the risk to adjacent businesses is more than marginally higher. It's the sort of thing that would have been brought up immediately with public consultation.

[Rainrider22]

It is fine to disagree when you are not the owner of the property who must do their due diligence. Dan is wrong to say the employees who planned this project are bad at their jobs. I was actually looking at this crossing in person just last week and I thought, wow, they did a great job. I am sure many people will see it as a good job as well.

[Rainrider22]

I think this is on point.

https://www.kitchenertoday.com/police-be...un-2294760

How so...  ?  By your statements above with respect to rules and subject to interpretation ,  pedestrians should just cross a street anywhere they want..

[danbrotherston]

I think this is on point.

https://www.kitchenertoday.com/police-be...un-2294760

How so...  ?  By your statements above with respect to rules and subject to interpretation ,  pedestrians should just cross a street anywhere they want..

So if you're not interested in a conversation, we don't have to discuss it.

This is a driver who hit a pedestrian and then drove off, why are you defending them.

[danbrotherston]

It is fine to disagree when you are not the owner of the property who must do their due diligence.  Dan is wrong to say the employees who planned this project are bad at their jobs.  I was actually looking at this crossing in person just last week and I thought, wow, they did a great job.  I am sure many people will see it as a good job as well.

There are numerous examples of why this is poorly done, the temporary wooden structure is anti-pedestrian, the connection between the crossing and the sidewalk is poorly aligned, the use of accessibility plates makes no sense, and the fence is something that should never have happened.

None of this means it isn't a crossing, but I'm not impressed.

I am utterly sick and tired of excuses for why our region is anti-pedestrian.

[danbrotherston]

You are wrong.  There are Rules and Regulations set out to follow for a reason.  Most rules were not created out of something good.  They were created out of necessity because something bad happened.  Mitigating risk to others is never a bad thing even if it means you have to walk to the end of a pathway to get to where you want to go.

These rules exist to mitigate risk to business, nothing matters more in our society, with the possible exception of free access by cars.

And again, if these rules are to protect against something bad happening, they aren't functioning well and they shoudl have been worked around.

[Rainrider22]

Please provide me where I stated I defend them ? You are blinded by your own personal bias. You often state people on this board dont know how to comprehend. You failed to comprehend what I stated. Time for self reflection and some emotional intelligence.