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:
  • 15 Vote(s) - 3.93 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit
(04-09-2020, 08:35 PM)Square Wrote:
(04-09-2020, 02:38 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Does anybody know if this will include ambulance? The article only mentioned fire, police, and GRT.
Waterloo Region EMS dispatch is run by the Ontario Government and use a different radio system.

Is that true province wide? It seems pretty weird to me to have all of emergency plus transit in the Region on one system, except for ambulance. Don’t the fire and police people have to talk to ambulances?
Reply


(04-09-2020, 10:17 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(04-09-2020, 08:35 PM)Square Wrote: Waterloo Region EMS dispatch is run by the Ontario Government and use a different radio system.

Is that true province wide? It seems pretty weird to me to have all of emergency plus transit in the Region on one system, except for ambulance. Don’t the fire and police people have to talk to ambulances?
This article explains it better.


https://www.therecord.com/news-story/911...-dispatch/
Reply
Police and firefighters and ambulance talk to each other through dispatchers it would be disastrous to have them all share the same radio....
Reply
(04-10-2020, 02:23 PM)Square Wrote:
(04-09-2020, 10:17 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Is that true province wide? It seems pretty weird to me to have all of emergency plus transit in the Region on one system, except for ambulance. Don’t the fire and police people have to talk to ambulances?
This article explains it better.


https://www.therecord.com/news-story/911...-dispatch/

Thanks, that was helpful.
Reply
Despite the rain, finally got a good look a the Traynor crossing. It's a bit of a hodgepodge, but it's working, so not too many complaints.

The level section from the Fairway crosswalk has high chain-link fence around a sidewalk.

   

This transitions to the ramp, which is a bit wider and has lower railings at hand height.

   

The concrete ramp ends a few metres away from the trackbed, and the gap is bridged by what is essentially a wooden deck. I'm fairly certain this structure is intended to be temporary and will be replaced by something more solid when they get around to installing the proper pedestrian signals.

       

The Traynor side is simple asphalt ramps up from the pedestrian trail.

   
Reply
Oh FFS...stupid f***ing fence...

Honestly, we don't have fences like that on sidewalks, nothing more than spending money to make ped infra less convenient, more oppressive and more dangerous (from a social safety perspective)....who does this, and why are they so bad at their jobs.

Edit: Also the sidewalk transition is terrible, and the accessibility plates make zero sense.
Reply
(04-30-2020, 10:59 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Oh FFS...stupid f***ing fence...

Honestly, we don't have fences like that on sidewalks, nothing more than spending money to make ped infra less convenient, more oppressive and more dangerous (from a social safety perspective)....who does this, and why are they so bad at their jobs.

Edit: Also the sidewalk transition is terrible, and the accessibility plates make zero sense.

Yes, we do have fences like that on sidewalks where they run between properties.
Reply


I don't understand the purpose of the black chainlink fence.
Reply
(04-30-2020, 11:30 AM)panamaniac Wrote: I don't understand the purpose of the black chainlink fence.

Well, to prevent "illegal" access to the ajoining properties, i.e., the likely destination of people using the walkway.

It's idiocy...
Reply
I dont see an issue with it. It looks clean and functional, It is safe. It gets the job done...
Reply
I suspect the city or Region purchased that portion of property where the fence is along the walk way. They need to keep it separate to mitigate risk and to appease insurance companies. The city wouldn't just spend money on a fence for no reason. Often there are rules and regulations that the lay person isn't aware of.
Reply
(04-30-2020, 11:22 AM)timc Wrote:
(04-30-2020, 10:59 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Oh FFS...stupid f***ing fence...

Honestly, we don't have fences like that on sidewalks, nothing more than spending money to make ped infra less convenient, more oppressive and more dangerous (from a social safety perspective)....who does this, and why are they so bad at their jobs.

Edit: Also the sidewalk transition is terrible, and the accessibility plates make zero sense.

Yes, we do have fences like that on sidewalks where they run between properties.

Not on commercial properties.
Reply
(04-30-2020, 11:59 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I suspect the city or Region purchased that portion of property where the fence is along the walk way.  They need to keep it separate to mitigate risk and to appease insurance companies.  The city wouldn't just spend money on a fence for no reason. Often there are rules and regulations that the lay person isn't aware of.

I am absolutely aware of those issues, it does not change the fact that this is an anti-pedestrian idiotic policy that has resulted in money being spent to make the city worse, and that people who were actually dedicated to making this as good as it can be would have pushed for a better less expensive, less stupid situation.

This adds 100 meters to anyone walking to any of those stores, for no legitimate reason whatsowever, those properties are open to the public, there is no restricted property being protected, as there would be in a residential setting, this is the type of thing that fiscal conservatives and urban activists alike should be pissed off about. Such an idiotic waste...

Yes, not the biggest issue, but few things are so clearly stupid as this.
Reply


(04-30-2020, 12:12 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(04-30-2020, 11:59 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I suspect the city or Region purchased that portion of property where the fence is along the walk way.  They need to keep it separate to mitigate risk and to appease insurance companies.  The city wouldn't just spend money on a fence for no reason. Often there are rules and regulations that the lay person isn't aware of.

I am absolutely aware of those issues, it does not change the fact that this is an anti-pedestrian idiotic policy that has resulted in money being spent to make the city worse, and that people who were actually dedicated to making this as good as it can be would have pushed for a better less expensive, less stupid situation.

This adds 100 meters to anyone walking to any of those stores, for no legitimate reason whatsowever, those properties are open to the public, there is no restricted property being protected, as there would be in a residential setting, this is the type of thing that fiscal conservatives and urban activists alike should be pissed off about. Such an idiotic waste...

Yes, not the biggest issue, but few things are so clearly stupid as this.
The walkway is not intended for people just accessing the immediate bushiness on both sides, it is for all public.  Businesses need to take measures to mitigate risk in their parking lots for insurance purposes.  If someone slips and falls on the businesses property because they were walking across the parking lot solely for the purpose to access the track crossing, the business can be sued and found at fault if they are deemed to have not taken appropriate measures.  I am sure part of the negotiations with the land owner and region was to place measures that would keep pedestrians off the businesses property. It is a small inconvenience for a few people who might want to access the businesses verses all the other people utilizing the crossing to access all of Fairway Road businesses.  That being said, at least they did something for the pedestrians in the neighbourhood ....
Reply
(04-30-2020, 12:31 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(04-30-2020, 12:12 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I am absolutely aware of those issues, it does not change the fact that this is an anti-pedestrian idiotic policy that has resulted in money being spent to make the city worse, and that people who were actually dedicated to making this as good as it can be would have pushed for a better less expensive, less stupid situation.

This adds 100 meters to anyone walking to any of those stores, for no legitimate reason whatsowever, those properties are open to the public, there is no restricted property being protected, as there would be in a residential setting, this is the type of thing that fiscal conservatives and urban activists alike should be pissed off about. Such an idiotic waste...

Yes, not the biggest issue, but few things are so clearly stupid as this.
The walkway is not intended for people just accessing the immediate bushiness on both sides, it is for all public.  Businesses need to take measures to mitigate risk in their parking lots for insurance purposes.  If someone slips and falls on the businesses property because they were walking across the parking lot solely for the purpose to access the track crossing, the business can be sued and found at fault if they are deemed to have not taken appropriate measures.  I am sure part of the negotiations with the land owner and region was to place measures that would keep pedestrians off the businesses property. It is a small inconvenience for a few people who might want to access the businesses verses all the other people utilizing the crossing to access all of Fairway Road businesses.  That being said, at least they did something for the pedestrians in the neighbourhood ....

You're missing the point, I don't care WHY we have chosen to make our world shittier for pedestrians, I care THAT we have made our world shittier for pedestrians.  This has just been one continuous quagmire, this whole area is intentionally designed to be unpleasant for pedestrians, we aren't making it better or doing something good, by building this in this way, we're merely returning to the previous broken status quo.

I'm not saying I would prefer no crossing---that is clearly worse, I'm saying that the whole situation is intolerable and we are continuing to keep the intolerable situation by doing things like this.

I wonder how many "urbanists" who do have cars, truly understand how oppressive and unpleasant that area of the city is for pedestrians. It isn't something you experience, unless you make an effort to do so, and those who do have cars, would probably, rightly choose to drive to those businesses. I have walked to them before, many areas of the city are designed exclusively around the car, and are difficult and time consuming to navigate without a car. This area is another level, it is unpleasant and oppressive feeling as a pedestrian, few other places in the city have felt dangerous in the same way.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 17 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