ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

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.

I mean, a trail through a residential property which the public is not intended to access I think is clearly a different situation. Sidewalks which abut the rear side of residential properties also generally have fences, this is not usually the case for commercial properties, even at the rear or side of said properties.

Even when we are talking about a residential property however, there is generally not a fence on both side of the sidewalk.

For the record, this is the THIRD case where the LRT has caused an entirely fenced in sidewalk, and those are the ONLY three examples I am aware of in the entire city.

It's also interesting how, much of the talk around this suggested it was intended for use by cyclists, but the fencing and sidewalk make it abundantly clear that is not a considered use case. After all, this is the region which won't put so much as a CURB between a cycle lane and cars.

[tomh009]

I should note that the "sidewalk" leading to the crossing is not really a sidewalk in the usual sense of the word, on the side of a street or road. In spite of the way it has been built, it's much more like a trail crossing a section of private property, as Kevin implied.

Given that this was previously private property, it's quite possible that the construction (including fencing) parameters were dictated by the purchase agreement that the city made with the property owners. (I would also have preferred this to be wider, but I expect the city would have had to pay substantially more to get a, say, 3m-wide path.)

[ijmorlan]

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 find your lack of faithlessness disturbing.

We’ve seen enough clearly dumb planning decisions that it is naive to assume that there must be a good reason for something.

That doesn’t mean there definitely isn’t a good reason, but if there is one somebody should be able to find it. The safety stuff that has been thrown around makes little to no sense.

I think the truth is probably a combination of lack of thought, default design guidelines, and possibly even some externally-imposed requirements.

[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 find your lack of faithlessness disturbing.

We’ve seen enough clearly dumb planning decisions that it is naive to assume that there must be a good reason for something.

That doesn’t mean there definitely isn’t a good reason, but if there is one somebody should be able to find it. The safety stuff that has been thrown around makes little to no sense.

I think the truth is probably a combination of lack of thought, default design guidelines, and possibly even some externally-imposed requirements.

My ultimate guess is that because it's city property between two businesses (as opposed to being against a city road or blvd) it needs to be fenced in for legal reason.

Fair warning, I am not a litigator.

If people are hell bent on figuring this out, I can email someone at city hall to ask, since apparently this is city owned. I'm just not sure who to email (as we have something like 47 different services), nor what exactly I should be asking.

[ijmorlan]

For the record, this is the THIRD case where the LRT has caused an entirely fenced in sidewalk, and those are the ONLY three examples I am aware of in the entire city.

I know about the “LRT viewing path” on the west side of Courtland, but I’m having trouble thinking of where the other example is of a fenced-in pedestrian path. Can you remind me?

[danbrotherston]

For the record, this is the THIRD case where the LRT has caused an entirely fenced in sidewalk, and those are the ONLY three examples I am aware of in the entire city.

I know about the “LRT viewing path” on the west side of Courtland, but I’m having trouble thinking of where the other example is of a fenced-in pedestrian path. Can you remind me?

I'm being slightly generous and including this railing atop a retaining wall on the other side of SLFs fence.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4587058,-80.5164811,3a,75y,164.47h,88.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stgcT-hTfTsxgWpAkjz1_Xg!2e0!5s20190701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

But it wasn't there before:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4587096,-80.5164677,3a,75y,166.87h,88.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1b4G7T8JFdwzBrRJNG2Fgg!2e0!5s20090401T000000!7i13312!8i6656

[jamincan]

Some examples of public property adjacent to commercial property without the trail being fenced off:
- the Dom Cardillo trail follows a hydro right of way adjacent to Stanley Park Mall
- the Walter Bean Trail at Lancaster (fenced on the Lancaster Smokehouse side, but not on the other business's side)
- numerous spots on the Spur Line Trail
- numerous sections of the IHT
- the trail from Kimberley Crescent dumps users into the FreshCo parking lot
- similarly the trail behind Orchid Crescent dumps users into the Wild Wings parking lot
- there's the trail coming from the Sunrise Shopping Centre heading west

I could go on, I'm sure. There are other examples where trails are fenced off, notably mostly adjacent to residential properties, however, it's pretty clear that they aren't *required* to be.

[ijmorlan]

Also, although it’s been mentioned before, just about every sidewalk in the city. If sidewalk next to road vs. trail were really the distinction, the solution would be to designate the LRT crossing trail as a road (closed to motor vehicle traffic), which could then dispense with the fences separating the sidewalk from the commercial properties.

[tomh009]

Ideally someone could ask the city staff for the rationale, I think that's the only way to get the real answer.

[danbrotherston]

Some examples of public property adjacent to commercial property without the trail being fenced off:
- the Dom Cardillo trail follows a hydro right of way adjacent to Stanley Park Mall
- the Walter Bean Trail at Lancaster (fenced on the Lancaster Smokehouse side, but not on the other business's side)
- numerous spots on the Spur Line Trail
- numerous sections of the IHT
- the trail from Kimberley Crescent dumps users into the FreshCo parking lot
- similarly the trail behind Orchid Crescent dumps users into the Wild Wings parking lot
- there's the trail coming from the Sunrise Shopping Centre heading west

I could go on, I'm sure. There are other examples where trails are fenced off, notably mostly adjacent to residential properties, however, it's pretty clear that they aren't *required* to be.

In most of those cases, I think those fences predate the trails. Certainly for the IHT and the Spur Line, also Dom Cardillo trail, which you'll note has a fence between it and the private residential property, but not with the stanley park mall.

The lack of access to properties along trails is a big issue with our current trail network.

[KevinT]

I know about the “LRT viewing path” on the west side of Courtland, but I’m having trouble thinking of where the other example is of a fenced-in pedestrian path. Can you remind me?

I'm being slightly generous and including this railing atop a retaining wall on the other side of SLFs fence.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4587058,-80.5164811,3a,75y,164.47h,88.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stgcT-hTfTsxgWpAkjz1_Xg!2e0!5s20190701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

But it wasn't there before:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4587096,-80.5164677,3a,75y,166.87h,88.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1b4G7T8JFdwzBrRJNG2Fgg!2e0!5s20090401T000000!7i13312!8i6656

So perhaps the presence of these fences deals with the steepness of the embankment. A wheelchair or stroller departing the sidewalk in front of SunLife wasn't in much danger with the original embankment but certainly would be now. The slope of the embankment along the Fairway Rd access sidewalk seems similarly stroller/wheelchair hostile.  Of course a simple curb would have sufficed, but I'm not sure I've ever seen a sidewalk with a curb and it probably wasn't in the designer's lexicon.

[jeffster]

I know about the “LRT viewing path” on the west side of Courtland, but I’m having trouble thinking of where the other example is of a fenced-in pedestrian path. Can you remind me?

I'm being slightly generous and including this railing atop a retaining wall on the other side of SLFs fence.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4587058,-80.5164811,3a,75y,164.47h,88.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stgcT-hTfTsxgWpAkjz1_Xg!2e0!5s20190701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

But it wasn't there before:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4587096,-80.5164677,3a,75y,166.87h,88.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1b4G7T8JFdwzBrRJNG2Fgg!2e0!5s20090401T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Dan, take a look at the before and after shots, and think about why they built a fence there.

SLF fence was always there, this isn't new. What is new is the retaining wall, built because they had to take away the boulevard strip, which angled towards the King St. In this example, it's not something that is anti-pedestrian, rather, it's a good safety feature and probably one that was required legally due to the retaining wall height.

[danbrotherston]

Uhh...guys, how little do you think of me. I am absolutely aware of the purpose of the railing.

It does not change the fact that it exists as a result of road widening for the LRT.

[jeffster]

Uhh...guys, how little do you think of me.  I am absolutely aware of the purpose of the railing.

It does not change the fact that it exists as a result of road widening for the LRT.

Not sure what to say. I assume you think the LRT is a good thing, so what other options did they have? The "fence" starts where it's 1 lane. They have a bike lane on each side. Really the road isn't widened either for cars, as they lost 1 lane each way, though bike lanes were added.

[taylortbb]

Uhh...guys, how little do you think of me.  I am absolutely aware of the purpose of the railing.

It does not change the fact that it exists as a result of road widening for the LRT.

Not sure what to say. I assume you think the LRT is a good thing, so what other options did they have? The "fence" starts where it's 1 lane. They have a bike lane on each side. Really the road isn't widened either for cars, as they lost 1 lane each way, though bike lanes were added.

Sadly those aren't bike lanes. They're just paved shoulders, and they disappear as soon as a turn lane is needed. Bike infra on King was one of the biggest missed opportunities in the LRT project.

In any case, I'm pretty sure Dan just meant "these are the places a fence exists alongside a pedestrian walkway", not that the one at Sun Life was unnecessary. Rather, it illustrates that normally it's something we only put up when there's an immediate danger (like a fall), and not just because an area is adjacent to cars (every sidewalk in the region).