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:
  • 8 Vote(s) - 3.38 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trails
Crosswalk markings at a place that isn't a crosswalk? What's up with that? Is some signage missing?

Also, I noticed that concrete base between the stop and look signs the other day; what is supposed to go there?
Reply


(06-09-2017, 11:10 AM)timc Wrote: Crosswalk markings at a place that isn't a crosswalk? What's up with that? Is some signage missing?

Also, I noticed that concrete base between the stop and look signs the other day; what is supposed to go there?

IANAL buuut here's my take anyway...crosswalk markings make a crosswalk:
 
 “crosswalk” means,
(a) that part of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or
(b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface; (“passage protégé pour piétons”)

You might be confusing an "crosswalk" with a "controlled crosswalk" or a "PXO"....all different things, so far as I understand, I too have made this mistake.

Legally, I think Ontario's pedestrian laws are a mess.

Legally painting this crosswalk actually restricts what a pedestrian can do, and gives them no more right of way. Drivers are not required to yield to pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks like this (even though it seems that they are required to do so in most other places in Canada and the US).

In practice it probably makes drivers more aware of pedestrians. On the other hand, due to the aforementioned lack of pedestrian right of way, it may also create situations where some drivers yield improperly, while others do not, creating a potentially more unsafe situation.

I could rant all day about the this issue.
Reply
I didn't know you could make a crosswalk by just painting lines on the road mid-block. I thought a sign was required, but it looks like the law says otherwise.

I know there has been trepidation in the past about painting zebra stripes in places like these. It creates confusion, and possibly opens the city up to some liability.

People are already confused enough with crossings like the Spurline Trail at Union, where some pedestrians think they have the right of way, and some drivers agree and encourage them. And that is without stripes.
Reply
I hate that.  I always wave the car through when they try and do that - unless there is no traffic at all...  Then I wave "thanks" and proceed, but with a worried look on my face so they know that I'm like "Yeah, I get you're trying to be nice, but that's really unsafe actually".

I hate confrontation but I actually yelled quite angrily at a driver once for stopping, insisting that I cross.  I had already stopped (on my bike) and she absolutely refused to go, despite traffic in the other direction not stopping.  She was oblivious that even if I wanted to go, I couldn't.  When I finally frantically yelled and pointed this out she threw up her arms and gunned it, engine revving like mad.  Her day was ruined!

Thankfully, that is one of exactly two negative experiences I have had in about 3000 km of cycling in the past ~13 months!  And that is positive - that a novice like me has had many orders of magnitude more positive encounters than negative ones.
Reply
While I am not as positive as Canard here, I have had many similar experiences at crossings as he describes. This is why I argue our current laws are pretty much pessimal. Everyone is delayed by nearly the maximum amount of time and safety is nearly minimized.

Drivers yielding when they're not supposed to simply creates more danger.

As a throw back to the conversation on another thread, if there is confusion, or difficulty crossing, the problem is bad design.
Reply
(06-09-2017, 11:55 AM)timc Wrote: People are already confused enough with crossings like the Spurline Trail at Union, where some pedestrians think they have the right of way, and some drivers agree and encourage them. And that is without stripes.

To help with the confusion, pedestrians do have the right of way at that crosswalk since it is a crosswalk since the dots on the ground are "other markings on the surface". So that helps?

The law doesn't govern what drivers should do when a pedestrian hasn't yet entered the crosswalk. Drivers aren't under a legal obligation to slow and stop for crosswalks unless there are pedestrians already within them (as far as I've read).

Whether they can or should...? *shrug* It's beyond me.
Reply
(06-09-2017, 01:44 PM)chutten Wrote:
(06-09-2017, 11:55 AM)timc Wrote: People are already confused enough with crossings like the Spurline Trail at Union, where some pedestrians think they have the right of way, and some drivers agree and encourage them. And that is without stripes.

To help with the confusion, pedestrians do have the right of way at that crosswalk since it is a crosswalk since the dots on the ground are "other markings on the surface". So that helps?

The law doesn't govern what drivers should do when a pedestrian hasn't yet entered the crosswalk. Drivers aren't under a legal obligation to slow and stop for crosswalks unless there are pedestrians already within them (as far as I've read).

Whether they can or should...? *shrug* It's beyond me.

Oh if only it was that simple....but no.  I also thought so, but pedestrians only have the right of way at controlled crosswalks, like those at stop signs or traffic signals.  Believe it or not, pedestrians do not have the right of way in an uncontrolled crosswalk.  In fact, and uncontrolled crosswalk legally only serves to limit the legal rights of pedestrians (who otherwise can cross anywhere, but if there *is* a crosswalk, they must only cross there).  

Like I said, Ontario's pedestrian right of ways laws can leave me ranting for a good long time.  As far as I can tell this actually differs from most other jurisdictions in North America that I've read about at least.

Confusion abounds.
Reply


Did you take the trail from downtown to speed River Park? The part from Woodlawn to Victoria is one my favourite trails in Ontario.
Reply
Yes! I totally hear you - it's my favourite, too.
Reply
There hasn't been much discussion about the proposed IHT to multi-mode hub trail.

Of the 6 options presented what are everyone's thoughts? Deadline for comments is by June 13th.

Personally I don't find any of the routs ideal, but #1 is probably the closest; I only wish it crossed King beside the tracks like some of the other alternatives do instead of going all the way down to Victoria.

Those evaluation matrix things with the unfilled, partially filled, and filled circles always confuse me. I get that some criteria might be weighted more than others, but I need more information to understand why one route was ranked better on a certain criteria than another.

For example, alternative 1 (the most direct route, 100% new MUT) had the lowest score (0.25) for ongoing maintenance, but alternative 3 (50% road/50% MUT) got the highest score (1). Is that because the road portion of the route #3 is already accounted for in the "roads" budget and wouldn't be considered "new" maintenance costs. If so, that is an invalid comparison.

The same for the property impacts. Alternative 1 seems to only affect about 4 property holders (Catalyst137, AirBoss, the parking lot, and MetroLinx) and alternative 3 affects about 3 property holders (UW, GEXR, private), but #1 scores a 0 and #3 scores 1? The Metrolinx property will even be surplus at some point when the move to a bigger yard further west or consolidate at Shirley.

   
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
(06-12-2017, 09:15 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: There hasn't been much discussion about the proposed IHT to multi-mode hub trail.

Of the 6 options presented what are everyone's thoughts? Deadline for comments is by June 13th.

Personally I don't find any of the routs ideal, but #1 is probably the closest; I only wish it crossed King beside the tracks like some of the other alternatives do instead of going all the way down to Victoria.

I wouldn't put any stock into the King end of things whatsoever, that's basically entirely up in the air until the transit station is built.  There will be some continuation (probably by foot through the station) for any option.  The route down King is actually present in all the designs because it's part of LRT construction, not the trail.

As for options, 1 is definitely the preferred option, but for reasons of practicality, I'm going to suggest also thinking about the other options as well.  For me, option 2 is probably best, but implementation details will be important--I'd love for waverly to be narrowed and a trail installed.

I also wish there was an option 4a where they build a MUT down the side of Victoria all the way to King, using the northernmost lane (and building a bypass up Joseph and along the suggested trail routing in order to provide right turns onto Park which is basically all the traffic on the northernmost lane anyway).

I don't really like their preferred option.  Cherry is a poor choice IMO (and I live near it, frankly, for me, it's the best option) because it carries a lot of traffic including trucks (who frequently drive over the no trucks sign ironically enough) who are avoiding the low bridge, it has a big hill, the entrance on to it from the trail was just rebuilt without cyclists in mind. Additionally, the crossing of Park St. at cherry is very difficult, it would need a light, but the bridge also likely makes that difficult or impossible. Worse, they suggest a MUT under the railway bridge, but I went out and measured it myself, there is not enough room for a MUT, maybe they can squeeze a 2.5 meter path in, but that's absolutely insufficient for a sidewalk of a major road plus a major commuter route, plus being next to a wall (which essentially makes it 2 meters).

So yeah, send feedback! Don't have to agree with me, but I think we'll all agree all the options are a compromise in some form.
Reply
Actually the only option that doesn't show a direct connection to the hub site crossing King is #1. The rest show a direct connection over King on their maps and have this text in their description:

"At King Street a pedestrian bridge at the level / elevation of the railway line crosses over the street to the Transit Hub. The pedestrian bridge is part of the design of the Transit Hub."


I think because of the timelines to qualify for the funding etc. I'm now thinking #4 is probably my preferred option and when things settle down (Catalyst137, HSR, Hub, Park St grade separation, etc.) then look at adding #1 and making sure it gets done right; no need to rush it if it isn't going to be done well. Although part of me wishes they could talk with Catalyst137 now and get them to rough in a part of the trail right now while they are doing all that earth moving and before the build the parking lot right to the edge of their property.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
(06-12-2017, 10:00 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Actually the only option that doesn't show a direct connection to the hub site crossing King is #1. The rest show a direct connection over King on their maps and have this text in their description:

"At King Street a pedestrian bridge at the level / elevation of the railway line crosses over the street to the Transit Hub. The pedestrian bridge is part of the design of the Transit Hub."


I think because of the timelines to qualify for the funding etc. I'm now thinking #4 is probably my preferred option and when things settle down (Catalyst137, HSR, Hub, Park St grade separation, etc.) then look at adding #1 and making sure it gets done right; no need to rush it if it isn't going to be done well. Although part of me wishes they could talk with Catalyst137 now and get them to rough in a part of the trail right now while they are doing all that earth moving and before the build the parking lot right to the edge of their property.

Yes, that is my point, the bridge across King St. will be built as part of #1 because it isn't part of this project, it is just an oversight I think. 

Yeah, it would be nice if they engaged with Catalyst now.  If you look at the satellite view, Metrolinx's trains are basically against the side of the building, there's a big difference between we need to negotiate a sliver of land, and, this building must go.

That being said, I suspect the challenge is dealing with the railways, they're not exactly the most timely bunch and there is some timeline crunch.
Reply


I still prefer Option 2. If they're serious about 3, I hope they consider a new passage under the tracks and not forcing trail users onto the narrow Park sidewalk. 4 is sort of decent, but I'd prefer avoiding Victoria.

1 is unlikely in any real short term scenario given the railways' well known foot-dragging. I agree that it should remain a hopeful long-term option.
Reply
Woolwich seems intent on turning as much of the Kissing Bridge Trail as possible into a generic tree-lined path with Trees for Woolwich community plantings in the open sections. It's hard to argue against more trees, but a big part of the appeal of this trail is the unique vantage offered as it cuts through the countryside. Much of it already runs through woodlots or is otherwise enclosed by trees planted since the line was decommissioned, so I guess I don't really see the appeal of enclosing the rest.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 11 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