09-29-2017, 05:03 PM
At least ambulances can use the LRT side. But other vehicles should not be heavily impeded either.
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit
|
09-29-2017, 05:03 PM
At least ambulances can use the LRT side. But other vehicles should not be heavily impeded either.
09-29-2017, 05:06 PM
This has nothing to do with Tim Hortons or LRT - it has everything to do with people being dicks. If the queue is full - move on (or park, and walk in).
(09-29-2017, 05:06 PM)Canard Wrote: This has nothing to do with Tim Hortons or LRT - it has everything to do with people being dicks. If the queue is full - move on (or park, and walk in). I don't think you can say it has nothing to do with Tim Hortons. I think they have some responsibility to make sure they're not encouraging/causing the behaviour. But even if you disagree, I think the Government still has to say that they can't have a drive thru in the current set up. Its not TH's fault people are dicks, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation and the end result (which to me is completely unacceptable in this case). Edit: I'm not sure if I'm missing context, but that post doesn't actually say anything about the LRT. I think its a totally legitimate complaint - even if its not the LRT's fault.
09-29-2017, 05:26 PM
(09-29-2017, 05:16 PM)SammyOES Wrote: But even if you disagree, I think the Government still has to say that they can't have a drive thru in the current set up. Its not TH's fault people are dicks, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation and the end result (which to me is completely unacceptable in this case). This is really it -- there should not be a drive-through entrance from what is effectively a one-lane street with no shoulder. However, the drive-through was there before the street -- so who should be responsible for addressing this issue?
09-29-2017, 05:28 PM
(09-29-2017, 05:16 PM)SammyOES Wrote:(09-29-2017, 05:06 PM)Canard Wrote: This has nothing to do with Tim Hortons or LRT - it has everything to do with people being dicks. If the queue is full - move on (or park, and walk in). It is somewhat related to the LRT in that the road had two lanes in each direction until the LRT came. But that isn’t a reason to complain about the LRT. This is exactly the sort of thing zoning should cover: I personally am a bit of a radical, in that I don’t actually think it is anyone’s business whether a business has a drivethrough … but it very much is everybody’s business if roads are blocked by people using the drivethrough. Since in the real world drivethroughs are permitted/prohibited by zoning, the rules should be re-written to say that drivethroughs are permitted only if operated in such a way as to avoid blocking traffic. It would be up to the business owner to ensure this by whatever means are necessary, up to and including posting a flagger to wave cars past if the lineup is full, or of course they would always have the option of closing the drivethrough.
09-29-2017, 05:29 PM
(09-29-2017, 04:28 PM)Canard Wrote:(09-29-2017, 04:21 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Those are not town names. They are the names of particular points on the railway network. For example, CN Silver is the junction between the GEXR Guelph Sub and the CN Halton Sub. It happens to be in Georgetown but from the point of view of railway operations that is irrelevant. Of course, many railway names are the names of nearby towns but not always. Sometimes it’s not even possible because there are multiple name points in the same town. It’s not intentionally confusing. It just happens to be confusing to people not familiar with the name. But that could be said of any name.
09-29-2017, 05:30 PM
Again, this is 100% bad behaviour on the part of a few drivers, not something that is any fault of Tim's or the LRT. I really don't know how to word this any better but you can't just take something away (the drive through) because a couple of people can't figure out how to use one (or not use it, if it's not available, BECAUSE ITS FULL). There is no change required, except in the behaviour of those who were caught using it inappropriately.
09-29-2017, 05:32 PM
OMG I cannot believe we are stewing about this Tims thing when there is literally a WORKING LRV ON ITS WAY TO US WHICH MAY EVEN SHOW UP IN WATERLOO LIKE TOMORROW.
09-29-2017, 05:39 PM
(09-29-2017, 05:30 PM)Canard Wrote: Again, this is 100% bad behaviour on the part of a few drivers, not something that is any fault of Tim's or the LRT. I really don't know how to word this any better but you can't just take something away (the drive through) because a couple of people can't figure out how to use one (or not use it, if it's not available, BECAUSE ITS FULL). There is no change required, except in the behaviour of those who were caught using it inappropriately. Not for nothing, but a good chunk of our laws exist because a non-trivial minority of people abuse the absence of those laws. I lol'd at your last post (about the LRV arriving).
09-29-2017, 05:53 PM
(09-29-2017, 05:28 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Since in the real world drivethroughs are permitted/prohibited by zoning, the rules should be re-written to say that drivethroughs are permitted only if operated in such a way as to avoid blocking traffic. It would be up to the business owner to ensure this by whatever means are necessary, up to and including posting a flagger to wave cars past if the lineup is full, or of course they would always have the option of closing the drivethrough. Should the same requirement (of hiring flaggers) apply to parking lots? Parking structures? Loading docks? Car washes? On-street parking spaces? On the upside there could be a tremendous upsurge in employment for professional flaggers, leading to eventual full employment in the country.
09-29-2017, 06:30 PM
Quote:SammyOES Here's the post for context: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FoodInTh...650229606/
09-29-2017, 07:55 PM
(09-29-2017, 05:53 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(09-29-2017, 05:28 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Since in the real world drivethroughs are permitted/prohibited by zoning, the rules should be re-written to say that drivethroughs are permitted only if operated in such a way as to avoid blocking traffic. It would be up to the business owner to ensure this by whatever means are necessary, up to and including posting a flagger to wave cars past if the lineup is full, or of course they would always have the option of closing the drivethrough. The requirement would not be to hire a flagger, but rather to avoid having an undue impact on the street traffic, by whatever means necessary, up to and including closing the drivethrough. Some people think zoning should forbid drivethroughs in urban areas. I think zoning should require that drivethroughs (and other property uses) not have an undue impact on their surroundings. Blocking the only travel lane on an important street through town counts as an undue impact.
09-29-2017, 08:18 PM
(09-29-2017, 07:55 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(09-29-2017, 05:53 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Should the same requirement (of hiring flaggers) apply to parking lots? Parking structures? Loading docks? Car washes? On-street parking spaces? Common sense should tell drivers to go to a different drive thru. Unfortunately that sense isn't common. Obviously on a street like this they'll make changes, either Tim Hortons or the Region or both, you don't want traffic backed-up on King if an Ambulance needs to go through.
09-29-2017, 09:28 PM
I get incredible anxiety if I detect that I am blocking anyone from doing a desired movement while driving, walking, biking, whatever. I can't believe that some people could not be aware of their surroundings enough to clue in that they're causing someone else some annoyance.
CTV running another drivel piece bitching about delays. "FOR SOME, ITS TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE." OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO They are completely useless twits. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|