It can be insightful to take another perspective on something we’re used to. Yesterday I walked the length of Kitchener-Waterloo’s Iron Horse Trail and photographed it from its most common vantage points — the roads crossing it. There is little immediately evident in these photos, but I will explain below.

What these photos show is the absence of anything to indicate the presence of the Iron Horse Trail. Which is a problem. How can we expect motorists to be mindful of a major path crossing if they cannot see it? Pedestrian infrastructure for the crossings is needed in order for motorists to give due attention to trail users, for the safety and improved experience of those trail users, and for better awareness of the Iron Horse Trail itself.

The Iron Horse Trail warrants raised crossings that are visually distinct from the rest of the road, but at the very least it should have zebra crossings.

Missing sidewalks are in blue, access roads that are used as paths are in red, and orange indicates unpaved or inadequately distinguished paths. (The image links to the detailed view on Google Maps.)

The University of Waterloo’s main campus was built in the 1960s, and it shows badly. The campus is designed with a strong car focus, despite UW being a university with extensive pedestrian traffic. I’ll leave further discussion of the problems of UW’s suburban form to a future post, and restrict this one to existing pedestrian issues.

How does the University of Waterloo fail its pedestrians? It often provides sidewalks on only one side of a road or sidewalks that are too small. Many main paths are not paved and encounter obstacles such as parking lots, man-made berms, poor or absent crosswalks, and, of course, weather conditions. UW forces pedestrians onto access roads designed for cars that make those on foot feel distinctly unwelcome. Instead of using more appropriately-sized vehicles, it uses regular vans and SUVs (maintenance, police, delivery, access vehicles) right on major pedestrian thoroughfares. Many buildings connect poorly to their surroundings, with few access points and several buildings actually surrounded by something resembling moats. The university is difficult to get in and out of, with poor connections to an existing path network and missing sidewalks on major roads (Westmount Road and Seagram Drive), as well as on the within-campus Ring Road itself. The adjacent shops on University Avenue surround busy parking lots and are frankly hostile to pedestrians, despite the vast majority of customers being pedestrians.

There are additional issues for cycling and handicapped access, such as excessive use of stairs, man-made topographic obstacles, mismatched or absent curb cuts, and so on.

In the map above, I’ve tried to point out most of the problematic sections around UW, excepting the significant additional troubles of ongoing construction. Below are a few photos I took this week that give a feel for the kinds of problems pedestrians face on the University of Waterloo’s main campus. UW does have many portions that work fine for walking, but that is no excuse for its failures.

(These photos are by no means a comprehensive account.)

What the hell am I talking about? Tourist trains, for one. Trains have gone away as transportation in most of North America, but tourist trains abound. When looking up Port Stanley as a possible place to visit a few months ago, I found that there was a tourist train between Port Stanley and St. Thomas along the old London & Port Stanley line. Note that St. Thomas is pretty close to the 401 highway, while Port Stanley is much further south, on Lake Erie. I thought it would be pretty neat — drive to St. Thomas and take the train to Port Stanley and back. Unfortunately, this tourist railway deliberately prevents usefulness, since the only boarding is done at Port Stanley. (In fairness, the Waterloo Central Railway between Waterloo and St. Jacobs does allow one-way trips.)

The bicycle hasn’t been a major mode of transportation in North America for the better part of a century. At the same time that driving has become the predominant way to travel, bicycling has stayed around as child’s play and recreation. Go to any Wal-Mart and you will find a wide selection of mountain bikes with 20+ gears and fancy shocks. At the specialized bike shops you’ll also find ultra-light road bicycles for the spandex-wearers. At neither place are you likely to find many comfortable utility bikes, with fenders, baskets, skirt guards, and lights. And neither mountain bikes nor road bikes are well-suited to being used for utility cycling. Yet when I look at what people use to get around town here in Kitchener-Waterloo, it’s almost always the ubiquitous recreational bicycles.

Walking is no longer considered a serious mode of transportation. Parks, however, abound with all kinds of recreational trails; often you’re supposed to drive to the park so that you can go for a stroll. These paths tend to be under the oversight of parks departments and feature signs saying they are closed at night. And being recreational trails, why would anyone want to use them in foul weather? Presumably this is why the path through Waterloo Park is not paved, despite being extensively used as transportation.

The Iron Horse Trail has its share of irony. It’s a rails-to-trails on the old Grand River Railway right-of-way. Though it is paved and even plowed, it isn’t lit and is “closed” at night. What used to be a passenger railroad was converted into a recreational trail, which incidentally is now used as transportation by many people.

I would suggest that the focus should be more on recreation as an adjoint to utility, not just recreation for its own sake (perhaps with utility as an afterthought). When your regular travel take you through a park, that enriches each trip — as opposed to the few times a year you might get to an out-of-the-way park. Focusing on making a recreational space useful can end up adding more to the quality of life for many more people.

Similarly, downtowns also should be about utility and not just recreation. As Jane Jacobs wrote, “You can’t rely on bringing people downtown; you have to put them there.” After the post-war suburban sprawl took hold, downtowns suffered. Some tried to convince people to come back through demolishing buildings and providing plentiful free parking to compete with the suburbs, to little effect. Others, like Waterloo and Kitchener, built downtown malls in the failed hopes that people would come downtown for them (instead of the suburban ones). Unless your downtown is an amazing tourist spot, it just cannot be sustained as an occasional destination. Downtowns need to be places that are used in a variety of ways on a daily basis — for utility, not just recreation.

Most pavement is impermeable to water. As a result, paved surfaces need to be designed to funnel water into drains, and drainage and sewer systems need to be designed for the high capacity necessary to deal with runoff from the huge number of paved surfaces in our cities. Instead of replenishing groundwater, precipitation is redirected to rivers and lakes. Runoff from roads carries with it automotive pollution, which is then concentrated in downstream bodies of water.

Various technologies are coming into use, however, for pavement that is permeable to water. Porous asphalt and pervious concrete are fairly new techniques, so they are still being developed and improved. The main difficulties include weight resistance and longevity, as well as cold climate installation. And, of course, it’s more expensive to install (particularly for cold climates), though it may be cheaper than conventional pavement if considered together with the costs of storm-water management.

What’s the point? First off, urban runoff is reduced, and with it pollution and the need for large and extensive drainage systems. But there are other benefits that I haven’t seen mentioned elsewhere. On impervious road surfaces drainage can work poorly, leading to the sometimes hazardous accumulation of water, which could be averted by permeable pavement. Likewise, it can prevent the ubiquitous puddles that form in depressions on sidewalks and paths. This pavement can also eliminate the need for drainage grates that are often encountered on bike lanes, which can be a hazard and nuisance to cyclists. If pervious concrete is used, it has the added advantage of reflecting more sunlight than asphalt, which can have a significant mitigating effect on climate change.

The technology is promising and I am surprised that the Region of Waterloo hasn’t yet taken up the idea. The Region should investigate permeable pavement and at least pilot the technology. They could do worse than paving the path through Waterloo Park as a test.

That’s King Street in Uptown, viewed at William. We’re looking north.

Walking north to the new public square.

King St and Willis Way, parkade on right, square on left.

This is the new public square, with everyone’s favorite rusty bell. We cross the square.

Somewhere in here a path begins.

The path doesn’t last very long before we’re in a larger open space in front of the mall.

I guess the yellow line indicates the path. CIGI is the building up ahead.

Uh. This is not very nice. We need to go in the same directions as the rail, but we’re getting sidetracked.

Caroline and Erb is a large and unfriendly intersection. The one-way aspect does not make for the most pleasant drivers, and we need to cross twice. Not that anything makes clear that that’s where we need to go.

Here we’re on our cobblestone path. With some unfortunate raised path crossing ours.

Except that’s not even a path, just decoration. Though if it weren’t raised above the paving stone, I wouldn’t mind.

There are some treacherous points for cyclists.

The Perimeter Institute is on the right, and the paving stones change over to asphalt with a bump.

And just that quickly, the asphalt gives way to dirt.

Straight ahead is Waterloo Park. If we turn left here, we can get to Father David Bauer Drive, go through the woods or a parking lot, then across some fields, and over a dam that’s apparently not supposed to be used as a bridge. Then we walk along the edge of a large UW parking lot, cross both directions of often busy University Avenue, climb over a hill, and then end up at PAS and Hagey Hall. During the winter there are more obstacles. We’ll go straight.

Keep going straight.

It’s hard to see here, but there’s a nasty pothole in the dirt/gravel.

Behind the fences on the right are various animals, and so this section attracts many strollers.

Another dilemma. Somewhere to the left there is a path that goes through the woods and can empty out onto Seagram Drive, which doesn’t have a sidewalk. Also, we could cut through the parking lot, which is nice and level. But we’ll follow the proper path and go straight.

Which means we get to go down.

The asphalt slopes downwards to the left, for runoff to go into the creek. That probably means this isn’t the nicest spot in the rain.

This pipe has become a rather unpleasant bump for cyclists.

Now we get to come back up. Most cyclists seem to go through the parking lot instead. [Update: So do most pedestrians.]

The path continues on the other side of the road and the tracks.

This is Seagram Drive, which — for cars, cyclists, and lost pedestrians — leads to the main UW entrance. A sidewalk is sorely lacking here.

If we keep going straight, we’ll get to University Avenue, cross at a special light (or be impatient and jaywalk), and end up at the engineering and math buildings. But we’ll turn left, as that leads to ostensibly the main UW entrance.

This looks promising.

Welcome to UW parking lot A.

The yellow striped area is for crossing between adjacent parking lanes.

This is not a pedestrian friendly crossing.

Almost there!

This section scares me, as there is very little visibility around the corner and you need to traverse a lot of space.

This is University Avenue and Seagram Drive. It’s pretty clear now where UW is.

Future campus plans call for this being a grander entrance, with a large open path traversing the campus from here.

As it is, South Campus Hall stands in the way, and many people climb the stairs just to go through to the other side.

To get to the library (back right) and the science buildings, we can go instead along this path.

All parts of the above route are quite well-travelled throughout the year. And yet, the path from Uptown Waterloo to the University of Waterloo is haphazard and planned either poorly or not at all. The main things wrong are the inconsistent and poor quality surfaces — dirt is not acceptable for paths that get used by commuter cyclists; the lack of sidewalks along Seagram Drive; and the need to traverse a very large and busy parking lot. It also has very little signage, none of it useful to the casual passer-by. Considering that the walk is barely 20 minutes, and that it goes from a university campus to a reasonably fashionable downtown, there is every reason for this path to be made a deliberate and planned thoroughfare.