06-04-2017, 08:02 PM
The CoK is coming to committee with a proposal to put an L2 PXO in Victoria Park:
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/Calendar/Dow...4ce3a5cdec
While I'm not looking to re-open the debate on whether Jubilee Dr. should exist or not, this type of thing indicates to me major problems with how the road functions, as well as how the L2 PXO legislation is written.
First, the legislation, it seems to be splitting the difference between an urban and suburban context. In an urban context (like within a park) 200 meters is far too much separation between crossings. The city seems willing to skirt the difference here by 20 meters, but other warranted crossings are much closer. It seems like the legislation should have deferred to the context of the road instead of setting hard limits. Additionally, crossings may be warranted at locations close to other intersections, and there is no way to accommodate this right now. This can be seen on many other trail crossings which are simply offset from the next intersection by less than 200 meters (most of the IHT crossings are like this). Thus, the legislation seems to have some serious limitations.
Second, the park road. I believe it's very clear there are problems with the road through the park. Again, I don't wish to open the debate, but I am concerned that putting in one well marked crossing will make the others even more difficult, because drivers (and pedestrians) will begin to believe that only one crossing is legitimate or legal. In reality, I think the road as whole must change in some way.
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/Calendar/Dow...4ce3a5cdec
While I'm not looking to re-open the debate on whether Jubilee Dr. should exist or not, this type of thing indicates to me major problems with how the road functions, as well as how the L2 PXO legislation is written.
First, the legislation, it seems to be splitting the difference between an urban and suburban context. In an urban context (like within a park) 200 meters is far too much separation between crossings. The city seems willing to skirt the difference here by 20 meters, but other warranted crossings are much closer. It seems like the legislation should have deferred to the context of the road instead of setting hard limits. Additionally, crossings may be warranted at locations close to other intersections, and there is no way to accommodate this right now. This can be seen on many other trail crossings which are simply offset from the next intersection by less than 200 meters (most of the IHT crossings are like this). Thus, the legislation seems to have some serious limitations.
Second, the park road. I believe it's very clear there are problems with the road through the park. Again, I don't wish to open the debate, but I am concerned that putting in one well marked crossing will make the others even more difficult, because drivers (and pedestrians) will begin to believe that only one crossing is legitimate or legal. In reality, I think the road as whole must change in some way.