ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[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.

[Canard]

The signs have to say 'no stopping' which encompasses all possibilities including 'no parking'.  If there is 'no stopping', then obviously there is 'no parking' either. The 'no stopping' is the most strict of all the prohibitions when you think of it.

   

[Canard]

The Region has a media release scheduled for later this week regarding parking, and marks the start of a safety campaign. Phew!

[panamaniac]

Don't tell me the WRC mini-drama of recent days has been for naught?

[Canard]

Well, I'll believe it when I see it!

I've been pushing for a safety campaign for over a year now.

[panamaniac]

The question must then be asked - did they plan to provide information to promote LRT safety all along, or are they responding to your pressure? I suspect the former, although I may give the Region too much credit, but as a WRC'er, the latter has definite appeal!

[MidTowner]

They almost certainly have to do some sort of safety campaign...but why now? Cynically, I would expect them to do a safety blitz at whatever cost, end the campaign, and allow just enough time to elapse between the end of the campaign and the launch of the system. Given that they can't keep up a sustained campaign for 16 or 18 months (and they won't), they should wait until closer to when the system is operational?

They should, as always, enforce the rules, of course...

[Viewfromthe42]

In part because you risk allowing the development of new (illegal and dangerous) autopilot habits of drivers. If you let them use the rapidway as a right turn lane, as a wait-to-turn-left area, as a kiss-n-ride/stop/parking space, then the habit becomes engrained and harder to break, even after the safety campaign. Plus, you create the anti-bad-habit with the blitz, and that hopefully pushes people not to break it when the blitz is over. Otherwise, you risk people thinking it's ok to do since it wasn't enforced for a year.

[Canard]

In part because you risk allowing the development of new (illegal and dangerous) autopilot habits of drivers everyone.

Fixed that for you

   

[Markster]

The sidewalks in that part of town were in shambles. I don't blame that person for using the alternate concrete path.

[Canard]

Jogging through an active construction zone seems like a bad idea, as CTV Kitchener recently pointed out... there are hazards.

[danbrotherston]

That doesn't look like an active construction zone.

[Coke6pk]

In part because you risk allowing the development of new (illegal and dangerous) autopilot habits of drivers everyone.

Fixed that for you

GrandLinq Track Inspector who just momentarily removed their Ministry of Labour mandated florescent vest?

Coke

[KevinL]

At least the person is walking counter to the flow of traffic, and would presumably see a vehicle coming head-on.