ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

Uhh...guys, how little do you think of me.  I am absolutely aware of the purpose of the railing.

It does not change the fact that it exists as a result of road widening for the LRT.

Not sure what to say. I assume you think the LRT is a good thing, so what other options did they have? The "fence" starts where it's 1 lane. They have a bike lane on each side. Really the road isn't widened either for cars, as they lost 1 lane each way, though bike lanes were added.

There is no bike lane, there is a pointless painted shoulder because our regional engineers refuse to have a single curb to curb lane narrower than 4.5 meters...you know, except sometimes when they do it and its' okay then. It doesn't meet any requirements for being a bike lane.  But don't worry, most drivers can't tell the difference either, and they'll harass you for not using it, and try to run you over when you do, since it disappears at random.  I'd say that the bullshit line is the most incompetent thing our LRT team of engineers did to cyclists, but this is the same engineering team that built the northfield bike lanes, so it's kind of a tossup...but honestly, there was exactly zero consideration given for cycling here...

But I digress.

I'm not saying the LRT is a good or bad thing, I'm merely pointing out that its construction has now led to three different sidewalk segments that are fenced (or otherwise blocked) in on both sides. I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been done, or that there's an easy alternative in EVERY case, I'm merely pointing out a fact.

If you want my value judgement, that particular fenced in sidewalk is probably the least offensive of the three partly because it is legitimate (there's actually a danger to peds) and because it is a railing not a fence, but that does not change the reality that it exists.

I'm not sure why this has caused such controversey, it is a simple fact.

Edit: Taylortbb has provided a much more succinct and to the point answer...I agree entirely with their answer.

[jamincan]

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.

[ac3r]

Well that settles it.

It's only a fence, anyway. If you're going to get attacked, it's unlikely to be in that spot because it's visible. The biggest downside is that it makes the pathway really narrow, so if you have a stroller or wheelchair for example, you (rightfully so, in this case) must take up a large part of the pathway and then pedestrians at foot can't easily step aside for them. Also kind of sucks for social distancing at this time...

[panamaniac]

It's also ugly, which was my main complaint. However, at least we know that it was not the Region requiring it.

[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.