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:
  • 15 Vote(s) - 3.93 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit
(11-25-2018, 01:48 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Fortunately, I think our citizenry still have enough initiative and sass to ignore such stupidity and exit from the stop in the direction that is convenient for them.

So our citizenry should make judgement on our rules and only follow ones that are "not stupid" and ignore ones that are not convenient for them. Yes?

Should that apply to automotive traffic as well? Construction? Liquor laws? Parking? Where does one draw the line.

(I'm sure some of our automobile-driving citizenry think the uptown bicycle lanes are stupid and not convenient for them.)
Reply


(11-26-2018, 03:01 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(11-26-2018, 10:58 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Pedestrians, like drivers, and cyclists, and all other human beings, are far more likely to follow the rules when the rules make sense and accommodate the common use cases.  If the rules aren't being followed by most people, the design probably hasn't made the rules clear, or they don't make any sense.

Or they are simply inconvenient.

"Hey folks! OK, we've got to design this station. Now, we've got a bit of an awkward challenge here: as it's lining up, it looks like we're going to have to compromise something. Either safety, or extra width to the Duke intersection, and you know what that means: cost."

"Can't compromise on cost."

"Nope."

"But hang on-- don't you think we should design this thing the way that people will naturally be inclined to use it?"

"Are you kidding? We can't afford that. Why don't we put up a sign?"

"Yeah! People read signs. Signs are great. If we tell them don't do something, they won't do it."

"... Hang on a sec. Are we talking about the same people that inhabit this planet? The ones that don't read signs? The ones who will kill a green space with their feet to shorten their walk by 5 seconds? The ones who don't follow speed limit signs, school zone signs, still drive the wrong way on Erb St., or who get lost despite big directional signs all over the place? Those people?"

"So?"

"So?! What you're saying is, instead of designing this station for the way that people are going to naturally use it, you want to change the very nature of society itself in order to fit the design?"

"Look, if they're not going to read the signs..."

"It just seems to me that if you want a particular outcome, you'd recognize human nature in your design process."

"Well, all the extra cost is inconvenient. So we'll put up a sign."

etc.
Reply
(11-26-2018, 04:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(11-25-2018, 01:48 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Fortunately, I think our citizenry still have enough initiative and sass to ignore such stupidity and exit from the stop in the direction that is convenient for them.

So our citizenry should make judgement on our rules and only follow ones that are "not stupid" and ignore ones that are not convenient for them. Yes?

Should that apply to automotive traffic as well? Construction? Liquor laws? Parking? Where does one draw the line.

(I'm sure some of our automobile-driving citizenry think the uptown bicycle lanes are stupid and not convenient for them.)

The uptown bike lane is very convenient, drivers can easily park in it, with no real risk to their vehicles...of course this is against the rules.  If the design had curbs and/or bollards, the design of the bike lane wouldn't encourage rule breaking.

The same applies here, people will want to access the station from both ends, the design of the station should accommodate that need, or make it impossible/invisible...putting up a sign saying "don't use this obvious entrance" is the problem.

Now, not having an entrance might be a trade off that is required by constraints (although, given the unnecessary side of the road, and the importance of pedestrian access to a transit station).  This applies to the bike lanes as well, not having parking on both sides is a trade off (in this case, one I believe is the right one), but it's important for the design to acknowledge human behaviour and result in the correct behaviour being the behaviour that comes naturally.
Reply
(11-26-2018, 04:17 PM)zanate Wrote:
(11-26-2018, 03:01 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Or they are simply inconvenient.

"Hey folks! OK, we've got to design this station. Now, we've got a bit of an awkward challenge here: as it's lining up, it looks like we're going to have to compromise something. Either safety, or extra width to the Duke intersection,  and you know what that means: cost."

[…]

"Well, all the extra cost is inconvenient. So we'll put up a sign."

etc.

Big Grin

I’d love to know what the actual discussion was like. Was the issue discussed at all, or did they just stop once they had one entrance worked out?
Reply
(11-26-2018, 04:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(11-25-2018, 01:48 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Fortunately, I think our citizenry still have enough initiative and sass to ignore such stupidity and exit from the stop in the direction that is convenient for them.

So our citizenry should make judgement on our rules and only follow ones that are "not stupid" and ignore ones that are not convenient for them. Yes?

Like it or not, we all make judgements about what the rules are and how important it is to follow them, in every situation. How fast do you drive on the 401?

In this case, the rules in question are clearly stupid, and it would be evidence of a self-defeating attitude for somebody to force themselves to obey these particular signs. Also, disobeying them doesn’t affect anybody else. My question is, why is it so hard for some people to admit that the authorities screwed up? I’ll even temporarily grant, for the sake of argument, that the Frederick St. case isn’t a screw-up, just an unfortunate amount of available space (even though it really is a screw-up). That still leaves places like GRH, where literally all that is missing from the north end is curb cuts. I defy anybody to even pretend to explain the GRH case.

In the case of the uptown bike lanes, while a legitimate debate can be had as to what the street plan should have been, the fact is that cars are large motorized contraptions that do not belong off of the designated lanes. Violating this rule has a significant effect on pedestrians and bicyclists. So it’s not an appropriate comparison at all.
Reply
(11-26-2018, 04:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(11-25-2018, 01:48 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Fortunately, I think our citizenry still have enough initiative and sass to ignore such stupidity and exit from the stop in the direction that is convenient for them.

So our citizenry should make judgement on our rules and only follow ones that are "not stupid" and ignore ones that are not convenient for them. Yes?

Should that apply to automotive traffic as well? Construction? Liquor laws? Parking? Where does one draw the line.

Tom, your post is exactly what I was thinking, too. You write it more eloquently than I ever could have. I’m always blown away at how some people actually think reading certain posts on this forum sometimes.

This whole thing of pedestrians ranting about how the world should revolve around only them, and how they should be allowed to break whatever rules exist, and how they should be able to do whatever they want is so, so very tiring.

“Well I walk so everything should cater to ME!!!!!
Reply
The discussion is about transit riders accessing the platforms, not "pedestrians." Although, wait, it's almost as though everyone is a "pedestrian" at times.

Anyway, of course people (however they might find themselves traveling at any given moment) should try to follow rules. I think people should try to follow norms, too. It's important for people to behave in a generally predictable manner. But it wouldn't have taken a lot of brain power to realize that people (er, "pedestrians," I guess) will access the platform at both ends. That's just the way it is.
Reply


(11-26-2018, 07:08 PM)Canard Wrote:
(11-26-2018, 04:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote: So our citizenry should make judgement on our rules and only follow ones that are "not stupid" and ignore ones that are not convenient for them. Yes?

Should that apply to automotive traffic as well? Construction? Liquor laws? Parking? Where does one draw the line.

Tom, your post is exactly what I was thinking, too. You write it more eloquently than I ever could have. I’m always blown away at how some people actually think reading certain posts on this forum sometimes.

This whole thing of pedestrians ranting about how the world should revolve around only them, and how they should be allowed to break whatever rules exist, and how they should be able to do whatever they want is so, so very tiring.

“Well I walk so everything should cater to ME!!!!!

I can't speak for everyone, but I've tried to make my position clear, it isn't about whether one should or shouldn't break the rules, it's whether people do.

The same is true for drivers, whether drivers should or shouldn't park in the uptown bike lanes is irrelevant, if designers don't want them too, the design should make it difficult or impossible to do so.

If you don't want people leaving through that end of the station, then it should be hard or impossible to do so, just putting up a sign, where people naturally want to go won't stop people from going there, right or wrong.

The separate discussion of whether it makes sense to block one end of a transit station in the middle of downtown is separate discussion, I'll assume you aren't suggesting pedestrians are wrong in feeling they should be catered to at a transit station.
Reply
It seems to me that a decision was made not to have any mid-block, i.e. unsignalized, crossings. It may have been taken to improve safety, limit liability, and probably both. Personally I support that.

On a short street like the King to Duke block of Frederick there's an argument to be made for just stretching the platform to the crossing at either end, but I'm guessing it couldn't be done due to a combination of turn radius for the track and the desire to keep as many lanes open as possible: It was four lanes plus a dedicated left before, it's four lanes including left turns now. The sidewalk on the southeast corner probably could have gone on a diet, but then the through lanes wouldn't line up with their continuation on the other side of the intersection. Some inevitable trade offs were made. That's life man...
...K
Reply
Still doesn't excuse GRH, where extending a walkway north of the platform to the Mt. Hope crosswalk is really just a matter of pouring the concrete differently.

As for Borden and Kitchener Market, it's not as simple but it seems something more could have been tried.
Reply
@KevinT When it comes to a transit station in the centre of downtown, I'm gonna argue they made the wrong tradeoffs.

Frederick is way overbuilt anyway, it dates to the time when they wanted to punch it through to Queen St. in the West.
Reply
(11-26-2018, 08:09 PM)MidTowner Wrote: Anyway, of course people (however they might find themselves traveling at any given moment) should try to follow rules. I think people should try to follow norms, too. It's important for people to behave in a generally predictable manner. But it wouldn't have taken a lot of brain power to realize that people (er, "pedestrians," I guess) will access the platform at both ends. That's just the way it is.

I agree with this. But ijmorlan thinks everyone should make their own value judgements about the stupidity of rules. Decide whether to cross a train track mid-block rather than be inconvenienced by a stupid rule. Decide whether to run a stop sign rather than be inconvenienced by a stupid sign. Decide whether to design for accessibility rather than be inconvenienced by a stupid building code. Decide whether or not to park on a bicycle path rather than be inconvenienced by stupid markings.

While I may not agree with all the rules, this is not the kind of society I would want to live in. Sorry if that offends anyone.
Reply
(11-26-2018, 09:44 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I agree with this. But ijmorlan thinks everyone should make their own value judgements about the stupidity of rules. Decide whether to cross a train track mid-block rather than be inconvenienced by a stupid rule. Decide whether to run a stop sign rather than be inconvenienced by a stupid sign. Decide whether to design for accessibility rather than be inconvenienced by a stupid building code. Decide whether or not to park on a bicycle path rather than be inconvenienced by stupid markings.

While I may not agree with all the rules, this is not the kind of society I would want to live in. Sorry if that offends anyone.

This is pretty philosophical. But I will argue that we already live in this kind of society. There is no prior restraint on running a stop sign. You can run it if you want. There might be a post-hoc consequence to it, in the unlikely event that you get caught. But when too many people break the rules, or when the rules are unenforceable, then sometimes the rules get reformed. We see that sometimes in this country.

I'd also claim that ideally the rules should conform to most peoples' value judgments about them. If rules fail to do that, then we are encouraging rule breaking.
Reply


(11-26-2018, 07:08 PM)Canard Wrote: This whole thing of pedestrians ranting about how the world should revolve around only them, and how they should be allowed to break whatever rules exist, and how they should be able to do whatever they want is so, so very tiring.

Not sure what you’re referring to. If anything I wrote, then you aren’t reading very carefully.
Reply
(11-26-2018, 10:17 PM)plam Wrote:
(11-26-2018, 09:44 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I agree with this. But ijmorlan thinks everyone should make their own value judgements about the stupidity of rules. Decide whether to cross a train track mid-block rather than be inconvenienced by a stupid rule. Decide whether to run a stop sign rather than be inconvenienced by a stupid sign. Decide whether to design for accessibility rather than be inconvenienced by a stupid building code. Decide whether or not to park on a bicycle path rather than be inconvenienced by stupid markings.

While I may not agree with all the rules, this is not the kind of society I would want to live in. Sorry if that offends anyone.

This is pretty philosophical. But I will argue that we already live in this kind of society. There is no prior restraint on running a stop sign. You can run it if you want. There might be a post-hoc consequence to it, in the unlikely event that you get caught. But when too many people break the rules, or when the rules are unenforceable, then sometimes the rules get reformed. We see that sometimes in this country.

I'd also claim that ideally the rules should conform to most peoples' value judgments about them. If rules fail to do that, then we are encouraging rule breaking.

Yes, I'd agree this is already the society we live in, many of the rules we have are entirely unenforced.

Moderate speeding (say, 70 on Fischer-Hallman or 115 on the 401), stopping before the stop line, signalling turns, walking after the walk sign is off but while the countdown shows enough time to proceed (this is an example of a rule that is frequently reformed, it has been reformed in multiple US states), generally these are rules which are generally not enforced, and are broken quite frequently by people--even myself.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 11 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