ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

For what it's worth, this is apparently from staff involved in setting up the walkway:

This was a requirement of the purchase of property.  From a liability perspective, Canadian Tire (ed. likely referring to Part Source) wanted to minimize pedestrian traffic through their parking lot and loading area.  Without the fencing requirement, we wouldn’t have been in a position to acquire the land and would likely have needed to conduct an expropriation process.  Had the expropriation process been necessary, there’s very little chance that the walkway would be established at this time.

I appreciate that...

Goodness this has been a quagmire. The requirement to expropriate was one of the reasons that taking 5 years to build this might have been reasonable...

For reference, the Margaret St. bridge that was unexpected condemned by civil engineers was reconstructed and reopened within 2 years.  The closure of the bridge caused drivers to need to make a 2 minute detour, the failure to implement a pedestrian crossing of the LRT tracks required a detour of almost 10 times as long for pedestrians.

[clasher]

I think they replaced that bridge in a hurry exactly because it was condemned, not because it inconvenienced drivers.

[danbrotherston]

I think they replaced that bridge in a hurry exactly because it was condemned, not because it inconvenienced drivers.

They closed and demolished it in a hurry because it was condemned. After that, there was no risk.

There was no requirement to build a new bridge quickly.

[Rainrider22]

For what it's worth, this is apparently from staff involved in setting up the walkway:

This was a requirement of the purchase of property.  From a liability perspective, Canadian Tire (ed. likely referring to Part Source) wanted to minimize pedestrian traffic through their parking lot and loading area.  Without the fencing requirement, we wouldn’t have been in a position to acquire the land and would likely have needed to conduct an expropriation process.  Had the expropriation process been necessary, there’s very little chance that the walkway would be established at this time.

That was exactly what I said at the beginning of this whole rant...   Insurance companies and Property owners will have required it.  No one spends money on a municipal project for no reason (typically).  I hope Dan realizes that all the employees are not bad at their job...

[danbrotherston]

For what it's worth, this is apparently from staff involved in setting up the walkway:

That was exactly what I said at the beginning of this whole rant...   Insurance companies and Property owners will have required it.  No one spends money on a municipal project for no reason (typically).  I hope Dan realizes that all the employees are not bad at their job...

I never disagreed with that.

And I stand by everything I have said, city staff, the businesses, the property owners, and you are all complicit in creating an anti-pedestrian environment.  As city staff explain, they could have expropriated the land...it takes about 5 years, if they'd started when this was first highlighted, we'd have the same crossing sans fence.

No more excuses.

[ijmorlan]

For what it's worth, this is apparently from staff involved in setting up the walkway:

This was a requirement of the purchase of property.  From a liability perspective, Canadian Tire (ed. likely referring to Part Source) wanted to minimize pedestrian traffic through their parking lot and loading area.  Without the fencing requirement, we wouldn’t have been in a position to acquire the land and would likely have needed to conduct an expropriation process.  Had the expropriation process been necessary, there’s very little chance that the walkway would be established at this time.

Hey! Enough with your facts! Begone!

But seriously, thanks for digging this up.

I must point out that this in no way invalidates Dan’s points about the pedestrian-hostility, nor does it make it acceptable planning. It just explains the details of why specifically those fences were built.

If the LRT planning process had been conducted in a competent fashion, the need for crossings (multiple) in that stretch would have been identified during the environmental assessment process, and appropriate crossings included in the final design for construction.

In this case I have no hesitation in calling out the planning process as incompetent because the existence of “desire lines” was evident in aerial photography available to everybody, from politicians to designers to every armchair critic in the world, by just taking a look at Google Maps. If the people responsible for planning major infrastructure can’t be bothered to take a quick look at the aerial photography before proceeding with detailed design, then they are negligent in their duty to the public.

[jamincan]

To be clear, I didn't dig up the information. It was forwarded to me by Canardiain on twitter - he had noticed the same thing and spoke to staff about it.

[clasher]

I think they replaced that bridge in a hurry exactly because it was condemned, not because it inconvenienced drivers.

They closed and demolished it in a hurry because it was condemned. After that, there was no risk.

There was no requirement to build a new bridge quickly.

It doesn't get any cheaper to build in the future so why wait?

[tomh009]

To be clear, I didn't dig up the information. It was forwarded to me by someone else, but I'm not sure if they want to be identified or not.

Thanks to both you and the unknown benefactor for bringing the facts to light!

[tomh009]

If the LRT planning process had been conducted in a competent fashion, the need for crossings (multiple) in that stretch would have been identified during the environmental assessment process, and appropriate crossings included in the final design for construction.

I would argue that the LRT planning process was generally conducted in a competent fashion, especially given the political and financial constraints. They were not perfect and missed some things (such as this one) and we may disagree with some of their decisions, but I think calling the entire planning process incompetent is a bit much.

[danbrotherston]

They closed and demolished it in a hurry because it was condemned. After that, there was no risk.

There was no requirement to build a new bridge quickly.

It doesn't get any cheaper to build in the future so why wait?

Actually money in the future is cheaper than money now...that's why deferring construction of the new landfill is a win, not a loss.

But if it really was cheaper now, why wouldn't they have built the crossing sooner.

This isn't about some fiscal fact, this is simply the different priority and importance placed on critical pedestrian infrastructure compared with ANY car infrastructure.

[danbrotherston]

If the LRT planning process had been conducted in a competent fashion, the need for crossings (multiple) in that stretch would have been identified during the environmental assessment process, and appropriate crossings included in the final design for construction.

I would argue that the LRT planning process was generally conducted in a competent fashion, especially given the political and financial constraints. They were not perfect and missed some things (such as this one) and we may disagree with some of their decisions, but I think calling the entire planning process incompetent is a bit much.

I might agree with calling the entire process incompetent, they have managed to get a train running reliably relatively on time and on budget, something Ottawa has not achieved.

But when it comes to ped and cycling infra, it's a lot worse than "not perfect", they missed more than a few things.

But you hit the nail on the head when you say it's within the political constraints...this is why I won't take any of these excuses, if pedestrians were a priority, the crossing would have been built years ago. The existence of the fence today only shows that we haven't changed our priorities.

[panamaniac]

I would argue that the LRT planning process was generally conducted in a competent fashion, especially given the political and financial constraints. They were not perfect and missed some things (such as this one) and we may disagree with some of their decisions, but I think calling the entire planning process incompetent is a bit much.

I might agree with calling the entire process incompetent, they have managed to get a train running reliably relatively on time and on budget, something Ottawa has not achieved.

But when it comes to ped and cycling infra, it's a lot worse than "not perfect", they missed more than a few things.

But you hit the nail on the head when you say it's within the political constraints...this is why I won't take any of these excuses, if pedestrians were a priority, the crossing would have been built years ago. The existence of the fence today only shows that we haven't changed our priorities.

It should be noted, however, that, despite shortcomings, K-W’s pedí and cycle infra has never been better and that it will continue to improve.

[Rainrider22]

I would argue that the LRT planning process was generally conducted in a competent fashion, especially given the political and financial constraints. They were not perfect and missed some things (such as this one) and we may disagree with some of their decisions, but I think calling the entire planning process incompetent is a bit much.

I might agree with calling the entire process incompetent, they have managed to get a train running reliably relatively on time and on budget, something Ottawa has not achieved.

But when it comes to ped and cycling infra, it's a lot worse than "not perfect", they missed more than a few things.

But you hit the nail on the head when you say it's within the political constraints...this is why I won't take any of these excuses, if pedestrians were a priority, the crossing would have been built years ago. The existence of the fence today only shows that we haven't changed our priorities.

Did you attend the public planning meetings at the beginning of the process ?   I did...

[danbrotherston]

I might agree with calling the entire process incompetent, they have managed to get a train running reliably relatively on time and on budget, something Ottawa has not achieved.

But when it comes to ped and cycling infra, it's a lot worse than "not perfect", they missed more than a few things.

But you hit the nail on the head when you say it's within the political constraints...this is why I won't take any of these excuses, if pedestrians were a priority, the crossing would have been built years ago. The existence of the fence today only shows that we haven't changed our priorities.

Did you attend the public planning meetings at the beginning of the process ?   I did...

I was very involved in the process.  I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't be...I'm well known for being outspoken.  But there was no public consultation after the designs came out (and not to mention that the designs changed as a result of the design build process--several issues were introduced during the construction process).

Further, at the time, I had just moved to Kitchener from Waterloo, and have never lived near Fairway mall, I didn't even know about the trail until after the plans were released. But then again, it wasn't my job to either design it, nor was it my job to consult the people in that area.