Waterloo Region Connected

(11-02-2020, 11:50 AM)taylortbb Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-02-2020, 11:31 AM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]Ugh. Yeah.

But that no-parking sign really should have arrows pointing in both directions to take away any possible excuse of misinterpretation.

I really think the core problem isn't the sign, but the roll curbs. The vast majority of drivers believe that the point of roll curbs is to allow them to drive to the other side of the curb. I can't even really say I blame them, as I have yet to figure out what other purpose they serve.

We need to stop putting roll curbs along pedestrian spaces. Barrier curbs are the standard signal for "this is not a driveable area".

I agree with both points here. The sign should be fixed, the part with no arrow still isn't a parking space (it's the sidewalk actually) but some of our bylaw officers will refuse to ticket based on that.

But yeah, I do not understand the obsession with roll curbs...its well beyond annoying, and is endangering people for no reason now.

(11-02-2020, 11:31 AM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]Ugh. Yeah.

But that no-parking sign really should have arrows pointing in both directions to take away any possible excuse of misinterpretation.

Is there a misinterpretation?  The sign suggests that there is one private parking space to the left of the sign.  I thought the entire site was public property.  Which is it?  What is the private property?

(11-02-2020, 12:13 PM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-02-2020, 11:31 AM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]Ugh. Yeah.

But that no-parking sign really should have arrows pointing in both directions to take away any possible excuse of misinterpretation.

Is there a misinterpretation?  The sign suggests that there is one private parking space to the left of the sign.  I thought the entire site was public property.  Which is it?  What is the private property?

The entire site is public property, that sign is out of context, there is another similar sign a few dozen feet away. I have no idea why it says private.

There is definitely no parking space there.

I've seen a similar stupid thing at intersections...basically a no parking sign right next to an intersection will only say "no parking" with an arrow pointing towards the street, and no arrow pointing towards the intersection. I assume it's some stupid presumption on the legality, where the "no parking" bylaw doesn't apply to the intersection because...I don't know, there's a different rule presumably that says no parking in an intersection, so there is a belief that the sign must point towards the road only, which leads to the sign suggesting that parking IS allowed in the intersection.

What a boring, unimaginative space. It's just an extra large sidewalk with some benches.

I wish this city had some ambition for place-making.

(11-02-2020, 12:59 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]What a boring, unimaginative space. It's just an extra large sidewalk with some benches.

I wish this city had some ambition for place-making.

What would you have done with the space?  I might have liked to see a statue or fountain (with seating).

(11-02-2020, 01:02 PM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-02-2020, 12:59 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]What a boring, unimaginative space. It's just an extra large sidewalk with some benches.

I wish this city had some ambition for place-making.

What would you have done with the space?  I might have liked to see a statue or fountain (with seating).

I would have maintained the greenspace that used to be there.

Keeping/adding more greenspace should have been considered. I see they planted two trees, but that's not much. Also...what's with these benches they're using now, which have no backs? Overall, this looks like a very uninviting, cold place.

Vogelsang Green also went from being a beautiful old parkette with shrubs, flowers and very old trees to a sterile square of grass and weird squares made from I-beams. And more of those benches with no backs. The region definitely needs some better landscape architects...or the one working on it needs to be gifted a copy of A Pattern Language to study.

So I know there are some who will blame by-law officers for their enforcement of this, but as a former MLEO, here is my opinion:

Red zone to the left is the sidewalk.  Just because a surface extends beyond the side of the building, doesn't make it pedestrian only / sidewalk.  Its hard to tell with this angle, but if more than 50% of the sidewalk is blocked, then a ticket should be issued for that.  [50% may impede someone walking by, but the court won't uphold a ticket for a partial blockage unless other evidence is presented - ie. Officer observes a person with limited mobility struggle to get past]

Red zone to the right is covered by the NPA (No Parking Anytime) signage.

It looks like the yellow space (ESPECIALLY with the Private Parking signage) is a legal parking spot.  Perhaps the adjacent property owner leases the space from the city... which would explain the private property signage.

[attachment=7427]

Coke

EDIT: I notice the building there has a security camera pointed at the parking spot... makes sense to keep an eye on their car.  I'm sure they dont overtly care about filming bikes heading to the bike parking.

(11-02-2020, 01:02 PM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-02-2020, 12:59 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]What a boring, unimaginative space. It's just an extra large sidewalk with some benches.

I wish this city had some ambition for place-making.

What would you have done with the space?  I might have liked to see a statue or fountain (with seating).

Well, I'm not a designer of any sort, so I wouldn't assert any competence in coming up with a good design. But as a downtown resident I assume I'm part of the target audience for a place like this, so I'm comfortable in stating my dissatisfaction as I wouldn't use it.

A lot of people here seemed to like how the redone cenotaph was more "open" so I might be going against the grain here, but I really dislike the continuous pavements from road to pedestrian space, especially with no barrier. The facts cars are still parking here doesn't help, and suggests they don't feel any sense of separation from the paved road either.

I think just enclosing the space to make it more inviting and then doing the bare minimum like the lights and picnic benches on Gaukel and Ontario St would be a step towards making a "place". Of course I'm also never opposed to more art of any kind, as well as more greenery.

While I'm rambling with ideas, this would be the perfect size for a small urban playground if enclosed properly. While the location isn't ideal, if it could be kept child-friendly I would certainly use it if I was someone willing to raise children downtown.

(11-02-2020, 01:41 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Also...what's with these benches they're using now, which have no backs?

Why do all benches need to have backs?

(11-02-2020, 03:36 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: [ -> ]So I know there are some who will blame by-law officers for their enforcement of this, but as a former MLEO, here is my opinion:

Red zone to the left is the sidewalk.  Just because a surface extends beyond the side of the building, doesn't make it pedestrian only / sidewalk.  Its hard to tell with this angle, but if more than 50% of the sidewalk is blocked, then a ticket should be issued for that.  [50% may impede someone walking by, but the court won't uphold a ticket for a partial blockage unless other evidence is presented - ie. Officer observes a person with limited mobility struggle to get past]

Red zone to the right is covered by the NPA (No Parking Anytime) signage.

It looks like the yellow space (ESPECIALLY with the Private Parking signage) is a legal parking spot.  Perhaps the adjacent property owner leases the space from the city... which would explain the private property signage.



Coke

EDIT: I notice the building there has a security camera pointed at the parking spot... makes sense to keep an eye on their car.  I'm sure they dont overtly care about filming bikes heading to the bike parking.

I realize you are a former MLEO, but I really must disagree with this. Some, I feel is completely false, some, I think is just biased by the image.

The sidewalk was blocked, but not 50% but almost 2 feet (it's a wide sidewalk).

Unless you can point me to a specific bylaw which says parking less than 50% of the sidewalk is acceptable unless someone is observed to struggle to get by, I'm going to call bullshit. Courts make judgement based on the law, and the law says "don't block the sidewalk", not "mostly don't block the sidewalk".  If a court has made an error in legal judgement in your experience, I can believe that....they're just as failable as the rest of the justice system, but that is not a court policy, if it is, we need a protest.

But I don't think we do, I have a friend who has personally received a ticket for blocking a sidewalk when they were only 6 inches over, he measured, because he was angry, I was there in person, to see. This sidewalk was, for the record, several feet wide. He was blocking the sidewalk by less than even I would call in to complain about, and I am an asshole who calls and complains any time the sidewalk is blocked and I am inconvenienced.

As for the yellow space, you have simply chosen a line to draw around the SUV...that line is not perpendicular to the face of the building, by that logic, I can park anywhere next to a parking zone because I can just draw the lines however I want. That SUV was very clearly parked to the right of that sign, they are simply at an angle. Parking at an angle makes you an asshole, not a legal parker.

Part of this is the angle of the photo distorts things, the sign is only 2 meters from the sidewalk, it would be impossible to park any vehicle between the sign and the sidewalk, it is not intended to be a parking space, the signage is incompetent.

Third, as I already said, the use of "private property" on the signage is incorrect, that is not private property, there is no private property. I checked the city's property map before making this claim, I did not post a screenshot as I am out of image storage space, but I do not make claims like that lightly.

Edit: I see that you have drawn the yellow line along the line in the concrete, that is simply a decorative line, it doesn't actually mean anything if you see the entire square in context.

Here is a map confirming that there is no private property. The sign is clearly incorrect.

[attachment=7429]

(I am assuming that there is no special arrangement with the city allowing a private business to use that area for parking.)

It’s all quite bizarre. It makes no sense for there to be a private parking space there, but installing a “private property” sign in error would be exceedingly strange.

(11-02-2020, 04:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I realize you are a former MLEO, but I really must disagree with this. Some, I feel is completely false, some, I think is just biased by the image.

The sidewalk was blocked, but not 50% but almost 2 feet (it's a wide sidewalk).

Unless you can point me to a specific bylaw which says parking less than 50% of the sidewalk is acceptable unless someone is observed to struggle to get by, I'm going to call bullshit. Courts make judgement based on the law, and the law says "don't block the sidewalk", not "mostly don't block the sidewalk".  If a court has made an error in legal judgement in your experience, I can believe that....they're just as failable as the rest of the justice system, but that is not a court policy, if it is, we need a protest.

But I don't think we do, I have a friend who has personally received a ticket for blocking a sidewalk when they were only 6 inches over, he measured, because he was angry, I was there in person, to see. This sidewalk was, for the record, several feet wide. He was blocking the sidewalk by less than even I would call in to complain about, and I am an asshole who calls and complains any time the sidewalk is blocked and I am inconvenienced.

As for the yellow space, you have simply chosen a line to draw around the SUV...that line is not perpendicular to the face of the building, by that logic, I can park anywhere next to a parking zone because I can just draw the lines however I want. That SUV was very clearly parked to the right of that sign, they are simply at an angle. Parking at an angle makes you an asshole, not a legal parker.

Part of this is the angle of the photo distorts things, the sign is only 2 meters from the sidewalk, it would be impossible to park any vehicle between the sign and the sidewalk, it is not intended to be a parking space, the signage is incompetent.

Third, as I already said, the use of "private property" on the signage is incorrect, that is not private property, there is no private property. I checked the city's property map before making this claim, I did not post a screenshot as I am out of image storage space, but I do not make claims like that lightly.

Edit: I see that you have drawn the yellow line along the line in the concrete, that is simply a decorative line, it doesn't actually mean anything if you see the entire square in context.

OK, so lets say you park a car on the roadway. I will assume no one here has measured the space from their tire to the curb. There is a by-law (in almost every city), park more than 15 cm from the curb. If you are 45 cm from the curb, this is the part of the act you would be charged with. Now lets say an MLEO lays a ticket for every car > 15.1 cm from the curb. What do you think to Justice of the Peace would do with all of them? Common sense applies, and JP's err to a greater degree. (Kitchener) has lost enough parking trials with < 50% of the sidewalk blocked that the policy is to not write tickets. I never said it was a court order, I said it was policy. There are lots of policy decisions that you may not like, but they are there for a reason. Could they continue and hope to get new precedence? Perhaps... but there are lots of other violators to deal with. (Only exception to less than 50% would be if one or more tires were physically on the sidewalk). The 50% rule applies to No Parking / No Stopping zones too. [Unless spots are marked, then you would get a "Parked in more than one space" or "Parked in spot other than marked". ANY blockage of a disabled space will warrant a ticket as there is an expectancy of a person needing the entire widened space. Call bullshit all you want, its a fact of life.

As you are aware, I didn't take the picture. I can also clarify I wasn't there to see this vehicle. I stick by the yellow line at the sidewalk, but now that you have accused me of just drawing a line around the SUV, I will concede that the angles of the concrete that are parallel to the sidewalk are not the same as the line in the concrete to the right of the vehicle. It is highly likely that the yellow line to the right should of gone below the vehicle. I will also ASSUME that the bottom of the picture is the sidewalk along Charles, and if so, my yellow lines should of been cut short of that.

I'm not justifying the driver, nor am I saying you are wrong. All I am doing is giving some insight when you accuse by-law of being unwilling to write a ticket since there is no arrow pointing that way. There may be a reason to be unwilling.

Coke

(11-02-2020, 04:53 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]Here is a map confirming that there is no private property. The sign is clearly incorrect.



(I am assuming that there is no special arrangement with the city allowing a private business to use that area for parking.)

This is not the only example of the city leasing out spaces that are marked as private property.  There were 5 or 6 just off Young St (in the former city lot that is now City Centre).  That was public property, but those spaces were "reserved" for the King St business abutting the lot.

If you park your car (in Kitchener) in a RESERVED space, a LEASED space, or a lot that requires a permit (No pay and display option), you will receive a ticket for "Parked on Private Property - Municipal" under Section 4 of the by-law.

[attachment=7430]
* The fines are out of date, as is the entire ticket book, but the by-law remains.

I stand by my assertation that the signage is correct.

Coke