ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[WLU]

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.

Not understanding the long fence either. It's an inconvenience not only to those crossing, but also anyone that may drive to one store and wish to shop at another.

So the question is: was there a fence there before? That would seem to be the only legitimate excuse.

Just checked -- no fence.  I would have said that perhaps RBC wanted the fence there as a level of security, but a fence wouldn't need to enclose the walk way. So my other guess is that this is a safety measure, as the region bought the land that was separating the property the bank is on and the property that Part Source is on. Safety to pedestrians from walking on the lot rather than sidewalk.

Could also be some other legal reason I am sure.

Actually the existing parking lots are two separate pieces of property.  The owners of Parts Source a (stand-alone building) may not appreciate someone parking on their lot and then heading over to the bank or vice versa.

[WLU]

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.

Just curious, just asking a question but what scenario would you see where it prevents escape for a potential victim.  Again just asking, no offence.

[danbrotherston]

Not understanding the long fence either. It's an inconvenience not only to those crossing, but also anyone that may drive to one store and wish to shop at another.

So the question is: was there a fence there before? That would seem to be the only legitimate excuse.

Just checked -- no fence.  I would have said that perhaps RBC wanted the fence there as a level of security, but a fence wouldn't need to enclose the walk way. So my other guess is that this is a safety measure, as the region bought the land that was separating the property the bank is on and the property that Part Source is on. Safety to pedestrians from walking on the lot rather than sidewalk.

Could also be some other legal reason I am sure.

Actually the existing parking lots are two separate pieces of property.  The owners of Parts Source a (stand-alone building) may not appreciate someone parking on their lot and then heading over to the bank or vice versa.

Why not? They could before...why wouldn't partsource want it's customers to have convenient access to a bank?

[danbrotherston]

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.

Just curious, just asking a question but what scenario would you see where it prevents escape for a potential victim.  Again just asking, no offence.

You do understand how cages work yes?

When there is no fence I have 365 directions I can run away from someone who is threatening, when the fences are up, I have one, and there could be a train in the way, or another person.

[creative]

The fence could also protect from potential attackers hiding between/behind cars parked next to the fence!

[danbrotherston]

The fence could also protect from potential attackers hiding between/behind cars parked next to the fence!

You're being contrarian. An attacker does not need to hide, an attacker can "hide" as just another person walking up this fenced in area.

Having a confined area increases the risk. It's why humans have an aversion to confined spaces like this.

And it's literally one of the reasons I preferred a level crossing to a tunnel.

[ijmorlan]

The problem is bigger than "one" obstacle, the problem is everyone being complicit in the broken system.

Very true.

It occurs to me that you never hear the designer of one of these things say something like “yes, you’re absolutely right, but unfortunately I am required to follow paragraph 54.3 of the planning code, which says …”.

[ijmorlan]

The owners of Parts Source a (stand-alone building) may not appreciate someone parking on their lot and then heading over to the bank or vice versa.

Which, thanks to our absurd parking minima, is a fantasy scenario. When would the bank parking lot be full so that a bank customer would park at PartSource?

[ijmorlan]

The fence could also protect from potential attackers hiding between/behind cars parked next to the fence!

You're being contrarian.

No, he’s being …

creative!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

[jeffster]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I don't believe that this fence was built to be anti-pedestrian. I am sure that there was a good reason for it, whether or not it was right reason, that's a different discussion.

I still believe it was built to avoid the potential for pedestrians (namely, young children) from being injured. Whether that is the reason, I don't know.

My second guess is that city property has to be fenced off from business/residential/industrial/etc in general. I can't think of any city properties that are attached to other properties without fencing.

[danbrotherston]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I don't believe that this fence was built to be anti-pedestrian. I am sure that there was a good reason for it, whether or not it was right reason, that's a different discussion.

I still believe it was built to avoid the potential for pedestrians (namely, young children) from being injured. Whether that is the reason, I don't know.

My second guess is that city property has to be fenced off from business/residential/industrial/etc in general. I can't think of any city properties that are attached to other properties without fencing.

You honestly believe this was built for the benefit of pedestrians using the infrastructure? I have never said it was built TO be anti-pedestrian, but it absolutely *IS* anti-pedestrian, and was built IN SPITE of being anti-pedestrian, because pedestrian convenience and safety is not a priority in our society. But if you honestly believe it is supposed to benefit pedestrians than we are far far far away from an agreement here.

You can't think of any city properties attached to other properties without fencing? How about every single road and sidewalk in the city? Why isn't every sidewalk fenced in? Being next to a road is vastly more dangerous for pedestrians especially young children than a parking lot.

[jeffster]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this: I don't believe that this fence was built to be anti-pedestrian. I am sure that there was a good reason for it, whether or not it was right reason, that's a different discussion.

I still believe it was built to avoid the potential for pedestrians (namely, young children) from being injured. Whether that is the reason, I don't know.

My second guess is that city property has to be fenced off from business/residential/industrial/etc in general. I can't think of any city properties that are attached to other properties without fencing.

You honestly believe this was built for the benefit of pedestrians using the infrastructure? I have never said it was built TO be anti-pedestrian, but it absolutely *IS* anti-pedestrian, and was built IN SPITE of being anti-pedestrian, because pedestrian convenience and safety is not a priority in our society. But if you honestly believe it is supposed to benefit pedestrians than we are far far far away from an agreement here.

You can't think of any city properties attached to other properties without fencing? How about every single road and sidewalk in the city? Why isn't every sidewalk fenced in? Being next to a road is vastly more dangerous for pedestrians especially young children than a parking lot.

I think you need some anger management.

If you read my post, which apparently you didn't -- I said 1) it was built as a safety feature - young children tend to run away form there parents. Do we want parents chasing kids as soon as they're finished crossing the track?

2) This might be news to you, but sidewalks are NOT city property. This is why YOU have to shovel your sidewalk. And it's a dumb suggestion either way, because how the hell would cars go into their driveway? Parking lots? How could any business receive goods? I also said that it was fenced when city property hits private properties. Point to me any city property (a building or perhaps even a park) that is not fenced against a private property. I can't think of any.

Get your head out to the anti-pedestrian agenda you feel that the government has and car owners are horrible people for just a moment. It's not normal.

[Bob_McBob]

This might be news to you, but sidewalks are NOT city property. This is why YOU have to shovel your sidewalk.

Huh? Almost all sidewalks are municipal property, especially in residential areas.

[danbrotherston]

You honestly believe this was built for the benefit of pedestrians using the infrastructure? I have never said it was built TO be anti-pedestrian, but it absolutely *IS* anti-pedestrian, and was built IN SPITE of being anti-pedestrian, because pedestrian convenience and safety is not a priority in our society. But if you honestly believe it is supposed to benefit pedestrians than we are far far far away from an agreement here.

You can't think of any city properties attached to other properties without fencing? How about every single road and sidewalk in the city? Why isn't every sidewalk fenced in? Being next to a road is vastly more dangerous for pedestrians especially young children than a parking lot.

I think you need some anger management.

If you read my post, which apparently you didn't -- I said 1) it was built as a safety feature - young children tend to run away form there parents. Do we want parents chasing kids as soon as they're finished crossing the track?

2) This might be news to you, but sidewalks are NOT city property. This is why YOU have to shovel your sidewalk. And it's a dumb suggestion either way, because how the hell would cars go into their driveway? Parking lots? How could any business receive goods? I also said that it was fenced when city property hits private properties. Point to me any city property (a building or perhaps even a park) that is not fenced against a private property. I can't think of any.

Get your head out to the anti-pedestrian agenda you feel that the government has and car owners are horrible people for just a moment. It's not normal.

*sigh*..okay, where to start.

1. City sidewalks ARE city property, just because you have to shovel them does not mean they aren't. This isn't controversial, this is literally very explicitly laid out in our laws, feel free to check the boundaries of your property in the city's publicly accessible property database. Yes, I'm not saying sidewalks should be fenced, its your absurd suggestion that all city property is fenced that I'm objecting too. Roads are also city property (you don't have to shovel them) but they fenced.  So can you drop this ridiculous notion yet?

2. I did read your comment, and I do understand that you say it's a safety feature, I'm telling you, you I feel you are wrong, and absolutely absurd to believe so.

3. I don't think car owners are "terrible", and that is totally unrelated to the point here.

4. If I needed anger management, I wouldn't be having this calm if incredibly frustrating conversation with you, and frankly, your comment is intended to inflame the situation, and is a personal attack.

[KevinL]

I will say this - nearly all trails in our area that are 'cut throughs', as in wedged between two immediately facing private properties, are fenced in.

The difference here is twofold; the trail property is extremely narrow with no buffer space either side of the sidewalk, and the adjoining properties are commercial and would normally (and did previously) have open passage between them. Both those factors are good arguments for forgoing the fence, which the city seems to have not given proper consideration.

Of course, the entire lack of an access point in the first place comes from lack of municipal consideration of the local needs here, so I guess the irony is compounded.