ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Canard]

I would certainly hope so - I think we need to raise a stink about this. The Waterloo Park section is the part of the project I'm most excited about. I've dreamed for years of walking along that stretch of path having those trains silently blow by...

[ookpik]

That chain and post fence in Edmonton looks good and seems to work. They likely need some kind of fencing in the park because the trains will probably travel faster on this stretch than on the street segments. Most of the LRTs that I have traveled on, have fencing along fast sections to keep animals and/or pedestrians from encroaching on the tracks. 

If safety is the issue then chain and post won't stop yard apes and animals from running across the tracks. Neither will any fence that doesn't have self-closing gated openings. 

<SARCASM>Maybe they're going for some sort of jail effect with high, secure fencing along the tracks plus all the chain-link fencing that encloses the zoo on the other side. </SARCASM>

BTW Melissa Durrell's e-mail is Melissa.Durrell[AT]waterloo.ca and Dave Jaworsky's is dave.jaworsky[AT]waterloo.ca. I imagine the others follow the same pattern.

[clasher]

WTF? Y'all are against a fence because not enough people are killed by trains in Canada? On average 113 people are killed by trains every year, that's more than all the cyclists that get killed on average every year. But who cares, we gotta look at some trees!

It's not even the nicest part of the park and in the summer that path is pretty crowded with families pushing strollers and little kids running around willy-nilly like kids are gonna be. Riding down that stretch on a bike in the summer it's pretty much guaranteed that someone is gonna step in front of me or bolt out of nowhere, so it's full of people enjoying park space without any consideration for what is going on around them. I can see why a rail safety association would want to see a fence up.

There's not really another stretch of the LRT that will be running right beside a busy sidewalk is there? Especially double-tracks where it's happened that people cross when one train passes only to get hit by a train on the other track. It's even happened here where trains are moving slow and there was a crossing gate that was ignored, so it seems the only reliable way to keep people from getting on the tracks is to fence them off.

I'd gladly trade a view of some trees if it keeps people from risking their lives.

[clasher]

And before someone pipes up and says it's only freight trains that kills people, remember that 43 people have died since 1981 on Calgary LRT, and since Edmonton was brought up as a place that has a fence along the tracks, there wasn't a fence here when teenagers were running and goofing off near the tracks and they both died. A recent fatality in Minneapolis seems to involve a man that went around the safety gates. Seems like even self-closing gates might not be enough to keep people off the tracks. I know Waterloo is apparently the smartest city in the world or some bollocks like that but it's probably not beyond installing some basic safety measures to prevent needless deaths like these. Most of these people didn't have to die if reasonable precautions are taken and serious efforts were made to keep people off the tracks.

[schooner77]

"Bollocks" wow, a little British vernacular. This is becoming an international forum. I do agree with Clasher, fencing can only be a positive, preventative measure. Done correctly, and with some artful planning, it need not be an eyesore.

[BuildingScout]

It's not even the nicest part of the park and in the summer that path is pretty crowded with families pushing strollers and little kids running around willy-nilly like kids are gonna be. Riding down that stretch on a bike in the summer it's pretty much guaranteed that someone is gonna step in front of me or bolt out of nowhere, so it's full of people enjoying park space without any consideration for what is going on around them. I can see why a rail safety association would want to see a fence up.

There is too much bile there and too little thinking. As other people pointed out, there is no reason to cross the tracks in the first place. So pretty much everything you say is moot. If we start with no reason to cross the tracks, then we add a four foot iron fence such as the one below we can preserve a nice view of the other side while preventing all accidents and I bolded the word all since anyone crossing that fence is not there by accident but by design.

[BuildingScout]

How other LRTs deal with similar situations:

http://www.purplelinenow.org/Barcelona.jpg

https://janemitchellblog.files.wordpress...=300&h=200

http://metrobiketrails.weebly.com/upload...683890.jpg

http://www.railforthevalley.com/wp-conte...na-lrt.jpg

https://railforthevalley.files.wordpress....jpg?w=450

http://www.railforthevalley.com/wp-conte...1d95_b.jpg

[BuildingScout]

Lastly, to round up the subject, organizations such as the rail safety association do not have a mandate to balance competing interests. For example, insurance company/tax auditors give the most conservative of recommendations since they have no interest in the counterbalancing arguments. I've seen first hand such reports. Often weak minded managers follow them to the letter without questioning the reasons. For example, I remember when I was a student a tax person advising the university that one could not treat another person for lunch while paying with the UW Card. Management following blindly only to reverse itself within a year when Revenue Canada said this was nonsense.

The same is the case here. Said rail safety association has no incentive to balance accessibility, view, and aesthetics. I can see the need for a fence. A six foot high one is just a safety committee running wild. Did they recommend it be electrified by any chance?

[clasher]

LOL, bile.

Here's the view everyone is so keen on:

Goodness what a lovely little parcel of bush, never seen a nicer lot of trees in all the county...

I don't see what the problem with a 6 foot fence is, or even a chainlink fence, I mean there's already a chainlink fence (with barbwire even!!) all around the animal enclosures on the other side. There will have to be gates on the road that keep cars and people from crossing when trains are coming. The prevention of collisions and fatalities also keeps the trains running on time.

[BuildingScout]

LOL, bile.

Here's the view everyone is so keen on:
Goodness what a lovely little parcel of bush, never seen a nicer lot of trees in all the county...

Not the nicest view indeed, but your suggestion is to make it uglier.

I don't see what the problem with a 6 foot fence is, or even a chainlink fence, I mean there's already a chainlink fence (with barbwire even!!) all around the animal enclosures on the other side. There will have to be gates on the road that keep cars and people from crossing when trains are coming. The prevention of collisions and fatalities also keeps the trains running on time.

The problem is that it is an overkill. As simple as that. There is nothing a six foot fence would achieve that a four foot iron fence wouldn't do equally well.

In fact, a six foot fence is less safe than a four foot fence. Let's say some poor soul strays down the track suddenly to realize there is an LRT coming. A person can then jump over the four foot iron fence while it would be trapped inside the 6 foot enclosure. The same applies to animals and other form of wildlife. A racoon can scape through the iron fence, it is trapped inside a chain link fence.

I'm all in favour of safety, which is why I support some form of enclosure. The recommendation from the rail association is a CYA overkill that only creates the illusion of safety while actually making things worse.

[schooner77]

"too little thinking", "weak minded managers", "pretty much everything you say is moot" (used incorrectly)
I'm not sure where the "bile" is coming from. As for the agenda of the safety association in question, they aren't supposed to balance anything other than safety, I would hope. It is the responsibility of council to act or not act on their recommendations.

This area is crowded during the good weather, and erring towards safety is the responsible thing to do. None of your links show a reasonable equivalence to this circumstance. Each link represents a dedicated transportation route, close to traffic. If we were routing this down the Iron Horse trail, I would agree that a fence would not be necessary. This however, is a park, with children, and a lot of distractions.

[ookpik]

"Bollocks" wow, a little British vernacular.  This is becoming an international forum.  

Maybe he meant to say "bollards" as in the post and chain in a previous photo?  

That should accomplish the objectives of separating the tracks from the path, warning of possible dangers and not being a total eyesore.

[BuildingScout]

\As for the agenda of the safety association in question, they aren't supposed to balance anything other than safety, I would hope.  It is the responsibility of council to act or not act on their recommendations. 

Sorry, but they are supposed to consider competing interests. It would be even safer to enclose the entire route inside a safety vault. That way no one could ever collide with the LRT.

 None of your links show a reasonable equivalence to this circumstance.  Each link represents a dedicated transportation route, close to traffic.

Each of the links I sent has a walking path next to it. That was the criteria used to select them.

This however, is a park, with children, and a lot of distractions.

Ah, the good old "think of the children" which is always brought up when people propose over reaching regulations. Let me be very clear. I agree an enclosure is needed. I have yet to see an argument that a six foot chain fence is not an overkill.

[Canard]

Let's even the (heavily biased) tables a bit on that view, shall we?

   

This is my favourite portion of the route, and I can't wait to take pictures and videos along here.

[panamaniac]

I don't know the legal status, if any, of the recommendation of the rail safety association but it seems to me that now that the recommendation has been made, the Region is pretty much obliged to build some sort of a "fence", for reasons of legal liability.