Waterloo Region Connected
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit (/showthread.php?tid=14)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-04-2017

^ Agreed on all counts! Hear, hear! Where is the CBC article?


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Markster - 01-04-2017

Just putting warning tickets on the windshields will go a long way to stopping the behaviour.
There's clearly a sense of "crowd immunity"; people park there because they see others park there safely and without penalty. Few of those people would likely choose to be the first person to park there on a given day, but they will happily be the 5th.

Once people start seeing paper on windshields, I'm sure news will spread like wildfire in The Tannery to stop.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-04-2017

I almost posted last night that I was very tempted to print my own "Please don't do this, here's why!" sheets to put on people's windshields.

If I come up with something, I'll PDF it for others to use, too...


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - timc - 01-04-2017

I don't think it's a good idea to put papers on people's windshields. That is not your job, and just results in more litter.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Markster - 01-04-2017

I don't see anything terribly wrong with doing it. Though, after an initial shock and probably some anger, people will likely just brush it off and keep parking there, because the paper isn't official in any way.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 01-04-2017

The bigger concern from that photo is that The Tannery and/or Communitech are encouraging this illegal parking, as that section of the rapidway was plowed professionally. That's a very worthwhile conversation for the region to have with their favourite golden child.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-04-2017

(01-04-2017, 11:55 AM)timc Wrote: I don't think it's a good idea to put papers on people's windshields. That is not your job, and just results in more litter.

There are far worse alternatives. Big Grin

(That being said - I absolutely haaaaaaaaaaaaaaate hatehatehate when people advertising stuff touch my car and put stuff under the wiper. I go out of my way to actively avoid patronizing those businesses who do that. So I'd be a pretty big hypocrite doing that to someone else - even though they're in the wrong!)

I don't really like the idea of doing nothing. I fear we'll watch the system hiccup and have fits during service start-up, and risk delaying opening even further, while they try and figure out how to deal with the problem at that time. Rolleyes

That's why I thought notices might be a good idea, to start, if Bylaw isn't going to pick up the ball and start ticketing.

I also fully appreciate that this all has a very strong air of busy-bodying and I kind of hate that, but I also hate that people are abusing my lovely little tramway even before it's had a chance to shine. Big Grin


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 01-04-2017

I'd just apply a logical exercise. I may dislike it if someone puts something under my windshield wiper. I also understand that if I park illegally and get a ticket or a warning, I'm definitely in the wrong, and will get something under there, and quite deservedly. If someone saw another car hitting mine and left a note with witness contact information, I'd be more appreciative of that than a surprise broken light and no idea where to go. So if you park on the tramway, you're already inviting a very legitimate interference with your wiper (let alone a tow truck), so public notices like yours shouldn't be a surprise, especially since they don't come with the fine of the ones bylaw would deliver. That said, practice the obvious: don't abuse the wiper, lift gently, from the arm hinge point, and lower it back down gently.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-04-2017

(01-04-2017, 01:27 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: So if you park on the tramway, you're already inviting a very legitimate interference with your wiper

I think the interference potential being invited is far greater than that. Big Grin

Obv. yes and agreed on all points above.

Maybe they(bylaw)'ll wait until a month before urban testing (realistically: Q3 2017) begins and then start laying down the law, in order to avoid the risk of lots of negative public backlash in the likes of "Well this space is just sitting here doing nothing anyway, why can't I?"

(Which, I have to state, I hate and don't agree with at all - rules are rules - but am just saying I could imagine that's what the people who are parking there might fire back with.)


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Coke6pk - 01-04-2017

(01-04-2017, 01:27 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: I'd just apply a logical exercise. I may dislike it if someone puts something under my windshield wiper. I also understand that if I park illegally and get a ticket or a warning, I'm definitely in the wrong, and will get something under there, and quite deservedly. If someone saw another car hitting mine and left a note with witness contact information, I'd be more appreciative of that than a surprise broken light and no idea where to go. So if you park on the tramway, you're already inviting a very legitimate interference with your wiper (let alone a tow truck), so public notices like yours shouldn't be a surprise, especially since they don't come with the fine of the ones bylaw would deliver. That said, practice the obvious: don't abuse the wiper, lift gently, from the arm hinge point, and lower it back down gently.

OK, Former by-law officer reporting for duty! Smile   First and foremost, 99.99999% of people who know they were parking in the wrong will NOT feel anything placed under their windshield was done so deservedly.  I've worked many law enforcement jobs, and by-law was where I was assaulted the majority of times!  (We) feel empowered as drivers to have the "right" to do whatever we want with our automobiles, and don't appreciate being told otherwise.  The cyclists/pedestrians on the board will agree with me I'm sure.  [I am at most times an auto driver as well, I can see my faults and will own up to them!  I am NOT car bashing!]

Anyway, since we (meter maids) are so hated, I guarantee that if you got a ticket, we will have never touched your wiper blade [Unless it was frozen to the windshield].  A folded ticket slid at the bottom of the "U" will glide nicely under the blade, and I will not have to deal with the complaint of "I have no problem paying the $20 ticket, but I want $50 for new wipers" argument.  I'm sure the flyer stuffers do the same thing to avoid any liability.  I'd cringe if I ever saw anyone lifting blade arms, even gently.

Back on topic... a warning letter will do very little to nothing.  For enforcement to work, you need punitive damage [Fines] and threats work to a degree (ie. TOW AWAY ZONE... but if no one is ever towed, the threat is useless).  While it may make bystanders happy to see a vehicle towed, and the driver has the inconvenience of having to go pick up a car at a different location, it doesn't necessarily ensure compliance in the future.  Towing is to open an immediate need [ie Rush Hour traffic lane, LRT tracks when in operation, Fire Route, Snow Clearing, etc.]  To tow (off a city street) just to punish is not an acceptable practice anywhere that I am aware of.  Furthermore on towing, the city by-laws here in the region have set fines attached.  Tows are not part of the process.  If a vehicle is to be towed, it is at the expense of the requestor.  [ie. Property owner needs their spot back, they can elect to pay for a tow to have the vehicle removed.  When I towed from city streets here, it was at the city's expense to permit snow clearing / clear road access for safety].  (This is obviously different from the rules in places like Toronto/Mississauga/Brampton where towing is a part of the parking by-law, and set rates allowed to be charged, and liens placed on the vehicle until tow bill is paid)

Lastly to round out my XL post, all Regional parking by-laws were enforced by the city by-law officers when I worked there... so in the case of the Tannery (or the 5 cars on the tracks in front of the Duke Food Block I saw this morning), contact CoK and complain to them.  The No Parking signs posted will be sufficient for them to tag under the Region's by-law.

Coke


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-04-2017

Thanks for that very informative reply, Coke!

City of Kitchener bylaw was not aware of any new bylaws as of Tuesday, and instead directed me to the Region. One person at the Region gave me the correct bylaw, and another wrote and said there are no new bylaws.

So, sounds like nobody really knows what's going on (except you!). Smile


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Coke6pk - 01-04-2017

(01-04-2017, 02:52 PM)Canard Wrote: Thanks for that very informative reply, Coke!

City of Kitchener bylaw was not aware of any new bylaws as of Tuesday, and instead directed me to the Region. One person at the Region gave me the correct bylaw, and another wrote and said there are no new bylaws.

So, sounds like nobody really knows what's going on (except you!). Smile

I "like" to think so.... LOL

Putting up a no-parking sign does not make it a "Prohibited Area" under the by-law.  If you go to the Regional Courthouse (77 Queen), at the front are stacks of binders of the actual full by-laws regulations.  They will read something like "No parking will be permitted on the north side of King Street in the City of Kitchener from a point 9 m west of Queen Street to a point 9 m east of Ontario Street."  (It is illegal to park 9m from any intersection, so those don't fall into the No Parking section, as they don't need to be signed).  These continue for every block, each side of the street, for every street in the region that has a no parking sign.  If someone ever contested the legality of the sign, the binders are their for the prosecutors use, but are too heavy to carry in/out each week for trials.  Council approves all of these.  In the same way, every Handicapped Space and Fire Route are detailed in these regulations, normally with maps showing highlighted areas. 

When you call the city, they will not know a new street was added, and they would definitely say a new by-law wasn't added, but with a new regulation added, a new street would have to be listed before those no parking signs were posted.

I will ASSUMEthat all areas that currently have track will have been added to the city regulations under the "Park in a Prohibited Area" by-law, and adding "light rail tracks" to the by-law wording is for court clarification, but will not change the fact that a city or regional council approved those detailed areas as a place where parking was not allowed.

If the by-law officer shows up at the Tannery with their computerized ticket machine, they enter street and (normally) nearby street number and the computer decides if it is the city or regional by-law being enforced.  If it is not a valid location (ie. I printed my own No Parking signs and put them up on my street), the machine will give by-law an error message.  If there are clear no parking signs the officer will report the issue so that a) Signs are removed or b) Council adds that section to the regulations.  If the officer is creative, they can see if any other sections of the Regional Traffic By-Law apply.  [Park within 15m of a railway crossing, Park Obstruct Traffic, more than 0.15 m from curb...  Wink

Coke

EDIT: Since the tracks are marked as diamond lanes, I wonder if they will use 3.(a)(xviii) - Within a reserved lane during the hours and days that the reserved lane is in effect.  I think on the tickets it printed as "Park in a Bicycle Lane", but that may have been updated.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-04-2017

Just go up a few posts and look at the bylaw I quoted. No signs are required (just a courtesy, really); all tracks are off-limits to stopping and parking. It's pretty clear!


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 01-04-2017

True, but that might mean a different input is required. If it's an automated system where tickets are punched in typically by an address or a blanket condition (within 9m of an intersection), there would need to be an update to include "blocking the rapidway" or some such, and both the bylaw people on the phone and on the ground would need to be made aware of it.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 01-04-2017

@Coke6pk  That's all very interesting, and you've brought up a number of issues.

As Canard pointed out, the bylaws have been amended (as of Jan 1) to explicitly prohibit parking (or stopping, or even driving) on the rapidway.  That should be sufficient.

However, at least every time I've called (and that's frequently), I am told that in order for them to ticket a car parked in a bike lane, there must be no parking signs as well, which clearly isn't required, legally, and yet that seems to be the policy.

On the other hand, I asked for no parking signs at the trail crossing at Gage because cars and trucks frequently park there (too close) blocking line of sight. I was told that bylaw would enforce that if I called, even without signs, but other officers told me they didn't think that was against the bylaw at all.

It seems there needs to be some education of city staff on these specific issues.

Further, I'm surprised and frustrated by the requirement to have a bylaw actually written for no parking.  Why not just a bylaw saying "no parking allowed where signs indicate no parking allowed, the following is an inexhaustive list of locations that should have no parking signs...." after all, it is the sign that matters, that justifies that someone shouldn't park there.  If there's no sign, they have no reason to believe they shouldn't, if there is a sign, they have no reason to believe they should.  So the sign is what should matter.  Logically.

And you're absolutely right about entitlement of drivers, IMO, it's the most frustrating thing about our roads, and probably the hardest thing to change.  

Frankly, I think the city should take a hard line on this.  Giving too much leeway only reinforced the entitlement.