Walking in Waterloo Region

[ijmorlan]

So if I walk to the variety store or grocery store or pizza place in my neighborhood and cross busy streets, that doesn’t count, because my final destination is back home?

No, the point is that De Keere gives the impression of not understanding walking as a way of getting somewhere. We don’t know for sure how he lives his life, but it sounds like maybe he doesn’t use walking as a way to get places. So maybe he walks around his block (or to the neighbourhood park, or whatever) for recreation, but doesn’t walk to any actual destinations.

(please don’t quibble about whether “the park” is an “actual destination”; at a certain point, you’re supposed to put in an effort to try to understand what I’m trying to say and respond to that, rather than to the exact words I actually ended up typing)

My view is that while some of the things he said in the article make some sense (most importantly, it doesn’t make sense to give a red to a major street at a tiny street unless there is somebody on the tiny street who needs a green; how big “major” has to be and how small “tiny” has to be for this to be true is a debatable matter), he is not thinking creatively and flexibly. Just because the parenthesized sentence is true doesn’t mean that the only alternative is to make vehicles stop at every cross street.

[danbrotherston]

As both a walker and driver I found this article very informative and understanding. Isn’t a walk in your neighborhood going somewhere?

If your destination is the same as your origin I don't think it's going somewhere. I think Dan's point is that if one is going for a casual stroll it's less time sensitive than if walking is a part of your commute.

I do understand the argument, whether I agree with it or not, on suburban arterials. But there's beg buttons in downtown Kitchener and uptown Waterloo. Willis Way may not have as many cars as King St, but I bet the pedestrian counts are far more similar between the two directions. Once again showing they only considered cars in how they design the infrastructure.

In addition, walking in a middle class suburban neighbourhood with no particular destination makes it extremely easy to avoid dangerous, poorly designed crossings of busy roads.  Something far less possible if you are not living in a similar suburban neighbourhood, or if you have a particular destination in mind.

[KevinL]

His argument also fails to account for the most egregious cases of beg buttons, such as to access light rail stations. High pedestrian traffic should be expected in such a scenario, yet you can't get off the platform safely and fully legally at Kitchener Market station (among others) unless someone has pushed a button.

[danbrotherston]

His argument also fails to account for the most egregious cases of beg buttons, such as to access light rail stations. High pedestrian traffic should be expected in such a scenario, yet you can't get off the platform safely and fully legally at Kitchener Market station (among others) unless someone has pushed a button.

Worst of all, he actually claimed that the region makes context dependent decisions, but there is zero evidence of that, the region treats every intersection the same, whether a highway onramp with a six lane highway or a downtown core crossing to a mass transit station.

Frankly, to someone who actually walks in the region, it's insulting to our intelligence to make these claims.

In a bit of good news, actually great news, Jeff Henry's motion at City of Waterloo Council this morning passed unanimously.  He asked for staff to investigate and implement pilot projects to evaluate how to better allow for social distancing and safety in a time of COVID.

The council discussion around it was generally very good, very progressive, a bit of joking about how hard they' were going to get yelled at, but on the whole they were very bullish on the situation.

Jeff was able to give a very compelling narrative about the situaiton and frame it in an equity lense. He did a great job.

He also provided a very strong rebuttal of Steve van de Keere's....lets call them misleading statements about pedestrian signals.  If only regional council meetings sounded like this.

[Coke6pk]

So I'll be upfront and honest. I drive a car. I drive places. I cycled as a commute when the weather was convenient (and when I was working locally), and I walk for enjoyment, not as a necessity.

Yesterday, I had my car windows tinted. Its a 20 min walk to my home, so instead of waiting, I took the time to get in some exercise both ways. My walk started at Victoria & Lackner. I had to walk thru the mud (current construction area) to push the beg button. I stood at the corner waiting for the walking guy. As he came on, a concrete truck stopped at the stop bar. I looked up, saw the driver (who did stop) and began to cross in front. I quickly jumped backwards out of the way as I heard him start to accelerate his right turn.

A few hours later I walked back (the rest of the walk was uneventful), but when I got to Victoria/Lackner again, pushed the button, and when I got the crossing signal, looked to my left at the cars, where a woman in a van continued her right turn directly into my path while she looked left towards possible traffic.

Much like the recent BLM protests, I'll never truly understand how people of colour feel.... and yesterday in a very short period of time, I am empathetic more to pedestrians. [And I'm a driver that has always been aware of their surroundings, and like to believe I was bike and pedestrian friendly]

Coke

[Bob_McBob]

Unfortunately, the pedestrian who was struck by a garbage truck in Kitchener yesterday has now died.

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/woman-who-w...-1.5023362

[KevinL]

The pedestrian crossing for the Laurel Trail next to the Ion across Seagram Drive has been removed, according to this Reddit thread. Apparently car/pedestrian interactions had been causing issues and someone reported it, but the City chose to remove the zebra stripes immediately (presumably pending its upgrade to a 'proper' crosswalk).

[danbrotherston]

[ijmorlan]

I just shake my head....this isn't a technical problem, this is a self inflicted policy problem. I doubt the BC laws are even meaningfully different than our laws...we are choosing an inferior and vastly more expensive solution for no reason.

I wonder what happens if one replies back to the City asking why they don’t just put in stop (or yield) signs on Seagram. Note: I’m not responsible for any exploded brain cleanup that is required.

Really I think they should start with situations where the case for having motor vehicle traffic yield to the trail is unarguable, such as John St. at the Spur Line trail, but I think that this is a perfectly reasonable place to do that too.

Although the original question was ill-founded; it says the location “now lacks any priority for those pedestrians” when in fact legally it had no such priority in the first place. All signage should always agree with the law; we have standards and rules for a reason. It’s just that in this case the signage probably should have been adjusted in the other way, to give pedestrians the priority implied by the paint.

[danbrotherston]

I just shake my head....this isn't a technical problem, this is a self inflicted policy problem. I doubt the BC laws are even meaningfully different than our laws...we are choosing an inferior and vastly more expensive solution for no reason.

I wonder what happens if one replies back to the City asking why they don’t just put in stop (or yield) signs on Seagram. Note: I’m not responsible for any exploded brain cleanup that is required.

Really I think they should start with situations where the case for having motor vehicle traffic yield to the trail is unarguable, such as John St. at the Spur Line trail, but I think that this is a perfectly reasonable place to do that too.

Although the original question was ill-founded; it says the location “now lacks any priority for those pedestrians” when in fact legally it had no such priority in the first place. All signage should always agree with the law; we have standards and rules for a reason. It’s just that in this case the signage probably should have been adjusted in the other way, to give pedestrians the priority implied by the paint.

Well, I didn't ask that exactly, but I will now. I did however ask if the trail, which carries more traffic than the road, will get green by default, and drivers will need to wait.

True...I mean, the bigger question is why is priority so fucked up in Ontario to begin with.

[ijmorlan]

Well, I didn't ask that exactly, but I will now. I did however ask if the trail, which carries more traffic than the road, will get green by default, and drivers will need to wait.

Cleanup in aisle 3!

This is a perfect place to do that. There could even be remote detectors a fair distance back so that drivers doing a particular target speed, maybe 50km/h, would get a green just before they arrive at the light (assuming it had been at least a certain amount of time since Seagram had had green time, so the trail doesn’t get starved). And drivers don’t need to press a button, so the impact on them of only giving green when it is requested is lower than the impact on pedestrians of only giving green when requested.

True...I mean, the bigger question is why is priority so fucked up in Ontario to begin with.

Long history. But still it’s interesting that the traffic engineer training and recruitment pipeline is so far out of line with our needs.

[danbrotherston]

[tomh009]

No hope for a speed hump at the crossing, I take it?

[danbrotherston]

No hope for a speed hump at the crossing, I take it?

Sadly, I'm going to guess no...

The region generally won't put speed humps on their roads. I'm not quoting an engineer, but the general publicly stated position is that the purpose Regional roads are intended to carry traffic as quickly and unimpeded as possible, therefore speed humps or traffic calming of any kind would be against that purpose....therefore it makes no sense.

That being said, even if the city was in charge, I wouldn't expect a raised crossing...the city improved the trail to the south, and added a raised crossing on Patricia...it's not without issue, but it's definitely effective at reducing speeds.

They also improved the same crossing on West, but the city felt that there was too much traffic there to put a raised crossing...which really makes me question what they think the purpose of a raised crossing is....to me, Patricia has less traffic than West, therefore a raised crossing is LESS warranted than on West, not more...and Victoria has an order of magnitude more than West....

[tomh009]

They also improved the same crossing on West, but the city felt that there was too much traffic there to put a raised crossing...which really makes me question what they think the purpose of a raised crossing is....to me, Patricia has less traffic than West, therefore a raised crossing is LESS warranted than on West, not more...and Victoria has an order of magnitude more than West....

Yes, indeed.

A hump/raised crossing doesn't impede traffic flow, it just slows it down.