Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 15 Vote(s) - 3.93 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit
(05-02-2020, 02:37 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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?
Reply


(05-03-2020, 09:22 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(05-02-2020, 02:37 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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

B
ut 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

Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Ideally someone could ask the city staff for the rationale, I think that's the only way to get the real answer. Smile
Reply
(05-04-2020, 09:43 AM)jamincan Wrote: 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.
Reply
(05-03-2020, 09:59 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(05-03-2020, 09:22 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: 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

B
ut 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.
...K
Reply


(05-03-2020, 09:59 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(05-03-2020, 09:22 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: 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

B
ut 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.
Reply
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.
Reply
(05-04-2020, 06:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.
Reply
(05-04-2020, 11:01 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(05-04-2020, 06:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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).
Reply
(05-04-2020, 11:01 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(05-04-2020, 06:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.

There is no bike lane, there is a pointless painted shoulder because our regional engineers refuse to have a single curb to curb lane narrower than 4.5 meters...you know, except sometimes when they do it and its' okay then. It doesn't meet any requirements for being a bike lane.  But don't worry, most drivers can't tell the difference either, and they'll harass you for not using it, and try to run you over when you do, since it disappears at random.  I'd say that the bullshit line is the most incompetent thing our LRT team of engineers did to cyclists, but this is the same engineering team that built the northfield bike lanes, so it's kind of a tossup...but honestly, there was exactly zero consideration given for cycling here...

But I digress.

I'm not saying the LRT is a good or bad thing, I'm merely pointing out that its construction has now led to three different sidewalk segments that are fenced (or otherwise blocked) in on both sides. I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been done, or that there's an easy alternative in EVERY case, I'm merely pointing out a fact.

If you want my value judgement, that particular fenced in sidewalk is probably the least offensive of the three partly because it is legitimate (there's actually a danger to peds) and because it is a railing not a fence, but that does not change the reality that it exists.

I'm not sure why this has caused such controversey, it is a simple fact.

Edit: Taylortbb has provided a much more succinct and to the point answer...I agree entirely with their answer.
Reply
For what it's worth, this is apparently from staff involved in setting up the walkway:
Quote:This was a requirement of the purchase of property. From a liability perspective, Canadian Tire (ed. likely referring to Part Source) wanted to minimize pedestrian traffic through their parking lot and loading area. Without the fencing requirement, we wouldn’t have been in a position to acquire the land and would likely have needed to conduct an expropriation process. Had the expropriation process been necessary, there’s very little chance that the walkway would be established at this time.
Reply


Well that settles it.

It's only a fence, anyway. If you're going to get attacked, it's unlikely to be in that spot because it's visible. The biggest downside is that it makes the pathway really narrow, so if you have a stroller or wheelchair for example, you (rightfully so, in this case) must take up a large part of the pathway and then pedestrians at foot can't easily step aside for them. Also kind of sucks for social distancing at this time...
Reply
It's also ugly, which was my main complaint. However, at least we know that it was not the Region requiring it.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 24 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links