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:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Walking in Waterloo Region
IIRC, the trail technically goes through the parking lot, and that sliver that is the trail is owned by the city? I believe Viewfromthe42 was suggesting people might spraypaint a crossing point on Victoria at the trail, in order to cross directly into the parking lot rather than at the intersection.
Reply


(02-03-2016, 01:49 PM)GtwoK Wrote: IIRC, the trail technically goes through the parking lot, and that sliver that is the trail is owned by the city? I believe Viewfromthe42 was suggesting people might spraypaint a crossing point on Victoria at the trail, in order to cross directly into the parking lot rather than at the intersection.

I was referring to the Laurel Trail, at Weber, so as to prevent people from having to go down to Lincoln or up to Marshall. But yes, it would also be something for Victoria near everyone's favourite parking lot path.
Reply
(02-03-2016, 01:49 PM)GtwoK Wrote: IIRC, the trail technically goes through the parking lot, and that sliver that is the trail is owned by the city? I believe Viewfromthe42 was suggesting people might spraypaint a crossing point on Victoria at the trail, in order to cross directly into the parking lot rather than at the intersection.

I've heard that some of the land through the parking lot is privately-owned and obstructs the IHT. That's supposed to be some of the justification for requiring pedestrians and cyclists to use the proper intersection at Victoria/Strange/West. But almost everyone crosses with the IHT and cuts through the parking lot anyway.
Reply
(02-03-2016, 12:44 PM)ookpik Wrote: And perhaps more significant are plans to designate mid-block crossings. That should have a significant effect on improving the safety of trail crossings, e.g. Laurel Trail at Bridgeport and Iron Horse Trail at Victoria, especially if the cops hold periodic "safety blitzes."

It does depend on enforcement. It'll be a while before someone on foot can confidently cross at one of these midblock crossings without being absolutely sure they will be given the right of way (which will cause unnecessary delays for everyone)- too many motorists will flout the rules at first to feel safe. But if they are enforced, and most motorists eventually heed them, it could be great- cheap crossovers that only hold up motor traffic when someone is actually crossing. Perfect.

Laurel Trail at Bridgeport and Weber are both logical choices, I think. The Spur Line Trail at Union would be, if the City of Waterloo chooses to use these. I can think of a number of other locations on Weber and Victoria that would be good choices.
Reply
(02-03-2016, 02:58 PM)MidTowner Wrote: Laurel Trail at Bridgeport and Weber are both logical choices, I think. The Spur Line Trail at Union would be, if the City of Waterloo chooses to use these. I can think of a number of other locations on Weber and Victoria that would be good choices.

It's interesting that you say that, because the guidelines suggest placing these crossovers at least 200 m from a controlled crossing. The Weber Street trail crossing is closer to Lincoln Road than that, and the Spur Line also crosses Union fairly close to Moore. Even the Bridgeport crossing is less than 200 m from Peppler. It seems like a lot of problematic crossings fall into this category. And 200 m is a long way to ask pedestrians to travel.
Reply
(02-03-2016, 02:42 PM)ookpik Wrote:
(02-03-2016, 01:49 PM)GtwoK Wrote: IIRC, the trail technically goes through the parking lot, and that sliver that is the trail is owned by the city? I believe Viewfromthe42 was suggesting people might spraypaint a crossing point on Victoria at the trail, in order to cross directly into the parking lot rather than at the intersection.

I've heard that some of the land through the parking lot is privately-owned and obstructs the IHT. That's supposed to be some of the justification for requiring pedestrians and cyclists to use the proper intersection at Victoria/Strange/West. But almost everyone crosses with the IHT and cuts through the parking lot anyway.

In the Iron Horse report that came out last year there is a map that claims that the former rail corridor is all owned by the city, as the GRR rails ran right through where the "desire path" has been worn by people. I'm guessing Lai Lai's just assumed use of it after the rails got torn out?
Reply
(02-03-2016, 07:03 PM)clasher Wrote:
(02-03-2016, 02:42 PM)ookpik Wrote: I've heard that some of the land through the parking lot is privately-owned and obstructs the IHT. That's supposed to be some of the justification for requiring pedestrians and cyclists to use the proper intersection at Victoria/Strange/West. But almost everyone crosses with the IHT and cuts through the parking lot anyway.

In the Iron Horse report that came out last year there is a map that claims that the former rail corridor is all owned by the city, as the GRR rails ran right through where the "desire path" has been worn by people. I'm guessing Lai Lai's just assumed use of it after the rails got torn out?

I'd think that there might be a prescriptive easement even if it were owned by Lai Lai (http://akellylaw.com/your-right-to-use-s...al-estate/). In any case, I'm not sure that the signed alternative, to cross at the intersection, is actually safer. The sight angles are poor. I think a crosswalk is a better solution. I'd also go for a bridge, I think, even if bridges are terrible.
Reply


(02-03-2016, 06:13 PM)timc Wrote: It's interesting that you say that, because the guidelines suggest placing these crossovers at least 200 m from a controlled crossing. The Weber Street trail crossing is closer to Lincoln Road than that, and the Spur Line also crosses Union fairly close to Moore. Even the Bridgeport crossing is less than 200 m from Peppler. It seems like a lot of problematic crossings fall into this category. And 200 m is a long way to ask pedestrians to travel.

Thanks for pointing that out. You're right on all counts- Union and the Spur Line are even closer than Lincoln and Laurel.

For better or worse, people won’t divert two or three hundred meters out of their way. The Spur Line is too new for me to see patterns of behaviour, but the Laurel Trail at Weber, it seems like most trail users do not detour to Lincoln even though crossing Weber there is (at least for me) at times a bit nerve-racking.

On Union, some motorists seem to already be in the practice yielding their right of way to trail users. That’s maybe a nice courtesy, but it’s dangerous when behaviour is unpredictable and people have different expectations.

I can still think of lots of Regional roads where there is plenty more distance than 200 meters between crosswalks.
Reply
I don't think the 200m is a hard rule, just a guideline. Local conditions and needs would allow flexibility on that.

What's the distance on Weber, from Laurel Trail to Lincoln? To me this is the #1 mid-block crossing point in K-W.
Reply
A little less than 150 meters. I think Laurel Trail to Peppler along Bridgeport is about the same.
Reply
That should be a slam dunk, then, I think.
Reply
(02-04-2016, 09:20 AM)MidTowner Wrote: On Union, some motorists seem to already be in the practice yielding their right of way to trail users. That’s maybe a nice courtesy, but it’s dangerous when behaviour is unpredictable and people have different expectations.

This is why we should be doing a lot more with pedestrian refuges. If I only have to cross a single, one-directional lane of traffic, it’s not hard to see whether it is safe. On top of that, many drivers want to be helpful to pedestrians and will yield — but doing so on a two-directional road isn’t as helpful as the drivers may believe, and this is even more so on a four-lane road, where one driver stopping doesn’t even guarantee that all traffic in their direction is stopped.

It’s hard and confusing to talk to planners about this though. I mentioned the idea of pedestrian refuges to them, and got back something about new legislation enabling some sort of enhanced crosswalk. Now that I see this “level 2” stuff, it seems clear that is what they were talking about, but my initial impression that this is nothing really new was confirmed: “level 2” is just something that has already existed with slightly improved signage.
Reply
Yeah I agree ijmorlan. I want to be empowered as a pedestrian to take safety in my own hands, and the refuges allow that.

I've walked downtown kitchener to work for the past 2 years. I've almost been hit a couple times when crossing a street where I have the right of way - enforced by traffic lights. I will always jay walk when given the chance because it's much safer.
Reply


(02-04-2016, 06:01 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(02-04-2016, 09:20 AM)MidTowner Wrote: On Union, some motorists seem to already be in the practice yielding their right of way to trail users. That’s maybe a nice courtesy, but it’s dangerous when behaviour is unpredictable and people have different expectations.

This is why we should be doing a lot more with pedestrian refuges. If I only have to cross a single, one-directional lane of traffic, it’s not hard to see whether it is safe. On top of that, many drivers want to be helpful to pedestrians and will yield — but doing some on a two-directional road isn’t as helpful as the drivers may believe, and this is even more so on a four-lane road, where one driver stopping doesn’t even guarantee that all traffic in their direction is stopped.

Or when a "do-gooder" stops suddenly to let a pedestrian cross and gets rear-ended by the car behind them. The driver in the behind car is at fault legally, but that's beside the point. I suppose this could even be dangerous to the crossing pedestrian if the rear-end collision is forceful enough to propel the "do-gooder's" car forward. 

And as ijmorlan suggests, on multi-lane roads a "do-gooder" in the curb lane can obscure the passing car in the inside lane, resulting in a pedestrian getting hit, etc.

I agree that pedestrian refuges, large enough to provide safe refuge for a bicycle, walker, wheelchair, etc. would go a long way to increase pedestrian safety where trails cross busy streets.
Reply
(02-05-2016, 01:16 PM)Andy Wrote: Yeah I agree ijmorlan. I want to be empowered as a pedestrian to take safety in my own hands, and the refuges allow that.

I've walked downtown kitchener to work for the past 2 years. I've almost been hit a couple times when crossing a street where I have the right of way - enforced by traffic lights. I will always jay walk when given the chance because it's much safer.

Yes, strongly agree. Jaywalking = you check for lack of traffic and then you go. Obviously don't jaywalk in front of cars (or while texting etc).

Also agree with ijmorlan and ookpik's points. Unpredictable behaviour is not so good when it comes to cars.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 8 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