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.)

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.

For a city to be open to pedestrians, there need to be paths between useful destinations, the paths need to be maintained, and pedestrians need to feel safe. Before you can run, you have to walk, and before you can walk, you need a place to do it. In Kitchener-Waterloo there are numerous roads that are missing sidewalks, often on both sides of the street. Sometimes the sidewalks are sporadic: they appear and disappear on a stretch of road. Occasionally one-sided sidewalks even switch sides at intersections. Suburban subdivisions are haphazard, sometimes having full sidewalk coverage, but just as often leaving them out. And sidewalks in industrial areas are simple: there just aren’t any.

I set out to document the state of missing sidewalks in Kitchener and Waterloo. Using Google Maps, I drew red lines for roads missing sidewalks on both sides and blue lines for those missing a sidewalk on just one. I tried to cover everything that is not a suburban subdivision, and I did Eastbridge as an example of a suburban area. There are undoubtedly missing sidewalks that I did not document, and probably some tiny sidewalks that I mistook for curbs. Click on the below map image to see it on Google Maps in more detail. [Update: This is based on 2006 satellite imagery, and a few sidewalks have been put in since then.]

The list of important roads with serious sidewalk absences reads like a who’s who of roads in the region: Fischer-Hallman Rd, Fairway Rd, University Ave, Westmount Rd, Seagram Dr, Victoria St, Homer Watson Blvd, Bleams Rd, Manitou Dr, Lackner Blvd, Bridge St, Northfield Dr, and even King St and Weber St by the St. Jacobs Market. The suburbs are missing many useful sidewalks. And the north Waterloo and south Kitchener industrial parks — while currently devoid of sidewalks — would be quite reasonable places for them, as both are within walking and biking distance of residential areas and transit hubs.

Of course, it isn’t enough for sidewalks to exist. The sidewalks need to be maintained, cleared of snow in the winter, free of standing water, and so on. There need to be walkway connections. There need to be places to walk to. However, sidewalks are a significant step, as they invite people to consider their use and have symbolic value as a commitment by the municipality to its pedestrians.

By the Region of Waterloo’s own estimates, it would cost less than $20 million to add in all the missing sidewalks on regional roads. I would guess it would cost less than $100 million to construct every single missing sidewalk in Kitchener-Waterloo. Considering the region and the two cities can afford to spend around $100 million a year on roads, we can afford this.

What would be the outcome if we added in all the sidewalks? First of all, the people who already walk in these places would now be able to do so safely. Other people will consider walking when they otherwise wouldn’t have risked the side of the road. Many probably aren’t currently willing to walk because there literally is no space for it, or because they are afraid that poor weather would make their journey back unpleasant. Perhaps most intriguingly, there are many missing sidewalks along fast-moving roads to destinations that may be far for walking, but just right for cycling. I think a secondary outcome would be that many will consider cycling on low-population sidewalks as an alternative way to get to their workplace from their suburban homes — both of which may now be solely accessible by car. I know that legally bicycles are supposed to be on the roads, but as a practical matter, many roads — especially in suburban areas — tend to be scary for prospective cyclists, and consequently a very strong deterrent if they are missing sidewalks.

I don’t think sidewalks are always necessary on both sides of the street, particularly if one side does not have any connections. However, calculations about where sidewalks may or may not be needed must be viewed with suspicion, as they appear to me to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. The purpose of sidewalks and walkways should not be just to provide a choice for people, but also to accommodate the choices that will be made and already are being made by pedestrians. People in industrial areas do walk, as do people in the suburbs, whether or not planners think it reasonable. If you look carefully at the satellite imagery in the above map, you will find many places with footpaths in lieu of missing sidewalks.

There is a possibility that if you build a sidewalk, it will not have a use. For 60 years we have been erring on the side of building fewer sidewalks than necessary. It’s about time we started building at least as many sidewalks as we need, and perhaps a few more. Widen (and create) sidewalks, not roads!

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.