ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Pheidippides]

I confirmed that Allen is a windbreak today:
   

I also measured the platform width of Allen (windbreak), Willis (windbreak), and GRH (enclosure). Allen and Willis are both about 3.9m, while GRH was about 4.4. So the difference is about 0.5m. With the 0.5m "bike lane" on each side, 0.25m utility buffer, and 0.25m curb surely there was room to find 0.25m on each side and not impact the road lane width (excessive already) and sidewalk width.

This new bus shelter at GRH is less than ideally placed (actually not sure a wheelchair/scooter could actually fit past there, especially in the winter):
   

Time for another no parking blitz perhaps?:
   

[KevinL]

This new bus shelter at GRH is less than ideally placed (actually not sure a wheelchair/scooter could actually fit past there, especially in the winter):

That's a really unfortunate arrangement. Could they not have encroached on the grass by about a meter and not reduced the sidewalk width (and, perhaps, give this thing some side walls)?

Come to think of it, there are a lot of these 'canopy' type shelters being put in near the line. Most of them, though, don't have spare space behind them.

[goggolor]

The bus shelter closest to GRH has been the de facto smoking shelter since GRH got rid of their on-site smoking area a few years ago. Walls would just make it more attractive to smokers and keep the smell in - I would usually have to wait outside the bus shelter because it would have up to 3 smokers occupying the benches and reek like an ashtray. It remains to be seen whether the GRH smokers will use the new bus stop or cross over to the new heated and enclosed shelter.

[ijmorlan]

The bus shelter closest to GRH has been the de facto smoking shelter since GRH got rid of their on-site smoking area a few years ago. Walls would just make it more attractive to smokers and keep the smell in - I would usually have to wait outside the bus shelter because it would have up to 3 smokers occupying the benches and reek like an ashtray. It remains to be seen whether the GRH smokers will use the new bus stop or cross over to the new heated and enclosed shelter.

There should be a shelter specifically for smoking closer to GRH. If GRH won’t get its act together and figure out a way to make it happen, the transit authority should do it by building a bus shelter that is not particularly close to any bus stop but reasonably conveniently located for the smokers. Put extra prohibitory signage on the real bus stop and LRT stop and none on the decoy bus shelter, and instruct the transit enforcement people that they are not under any circumstances to issue tickets or even warnings for smoking in the decoy shelter. If necessary, have the decoy be officially at a bus stop, but one where no buses actually stop (they can use it if the real stop is under maintenance).

Yes, it’s a ridiculous solution, but it’s less ridiculous than transit riders having to smell smoke in the LRT stop all the time.

[KevinL]

If anyone tries smoking at a LRT stop proper, the security cameras should mean it gets stopped pretty quick. They'll be monitored live from the control centre.

[danbrotherston]

If anyone tries smoking at a LRT stop proper, the security cameras should mean it gets stopped pretty quick. They'll be monitored live from the control centre.

Lol, that doesn't even happen at Charles St. Terminal, so we'll see.

Also, that bus shelter is a shame, not only would it be trivial to put it 4 feet back and out of the way on the sidewalk (and it can still be left without sides if wanted), doesn't even look like a retaining wall would be needed, but even the existing shelter on the existing sidewalk could easily have been moved back a few more inches.  So pointlessly in the way.

[MidTowner]

I agree that the bus shelter is really unfortunate. It will create conflicts for sure.

I have no expectation of any enforcement of no-smoking rules at Ion stations. Smokers light up with impunity at any stop in the system at which they find themselves, including at the terminals. I doubt that will change any time soon. It's too bad, because "little" (it's relatively little to me, maybe bigger to others) things like this that dissuade people from using transit when they have other options.

[danbrotherston]

As someone with asthma it's a huge issue for me and if people routinely smoked at the transit stops I frequent I'd find it an intolerable situation.

[KevinL]

This is why I mentioned the security cameras being monitored live from the control centre. The agents there will be able to access staion loudspeakers, I understand, and admonish those causing problems; they can call security for those who remain belligirent.

[danbrotherston]

This is why I mentioned the security cameras being monitored live from the control centre. The agents there will be able to access staion loudspeakers, I understand, and admonish those causing problems; they can call security for those who remain belligirent.

I'm not sure if exactly the same is true at Charles Street Terminal, but I have complained about smokers there before, and been greeted with a shrug.  

Unless it is an explicitly someone's job to deal with it, I don't think it's going to happen.

[Canard]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We have platform numbers, people! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wrLRT?src=hash">#wrLRT</a> <a href="https://t.co/ECyyxSRgqq">pic.twitter.com/ECyyxSRgqq</a></p>&mdash; iain (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/878642197498822656">June 24, 2017</a></blockquote>

[embe]

That's a really unfortunate arrangement. Could they not have encroached on the grass by about a meter and not reduced the sidewalk width (and, perhaps, give this thing some side walls)?

The picture angle could be misleading, but judging by the size of the pile for the lamp post the grade is steeper than it looks. Agreed about narrow access

[danbrotherston]

That's a really unfortunate arrangement. Could they not have encroached on the grass by about a meter and not reduced the sidewalk width (and, perhaps, give this thing some side walls)?

The picture angle could be misleading, but judging by the size of the pile for the lamp post the grade is steeper than it looks. Agreed about narrow access

Having been there in person, but also not being a geotechnical engineer, I think sufficient extra space would have been available without a retaining wall.  With a retaining wall, no question.

There's also another issue in the background of that photo, which is the switchback sidewalk.  I agree 100% that it's necessary because it's the hospital (and also, we should be ADA [CDA?] compliant regardless), however, the slope there isn't that great, and there it would easily be traversable with a step or two, so I expect the majority of able bodied individuals will simply walk on the grass instead using circuitous sidewalk.  This type of thing should be anticipated and accommodated with a step.  Not doing so will simply lead to mud.

[timc]

There should be a shelter specifically for smoking closer to GRH. If GRH won’t get its act together and figure out a way to make it happen

They can't. All hospital grounds in Ontario have to be completely smoke-free by January 1, 2018.

the transit authority should do it by building a bus shelter that is not particularly close to any bus stop but reasonably conveniently located for the smokers.

I don't even know if this can legally be done. I think that such a shelter would be an enclosed public place, and smoking would have to be prohibited.

If it is important to prohibit smoking in transit shelters, then the law needs to be enforced.

[ijmorlan]

There should be a shelter specifically for smoking closer to GRH. If GRH won’t get its act together and figure out a way to make it happen

They can't. All hospital grounds in Ontario have to be completely smoke-free by January 1, 2018.

the transit authority should do it by building a bus shelter that is not particularly close to any bus stop but reasonably conveniently located for the smokers.

I don't even know if this can legally be done. I think that such a shelter would be an enclosed public place, and smoking would have to be prohibited.

If it is important to prohibit smoking in transit shelters, then the law needs to be enforced.

So they should build their shelter just off hospital grounds. For the idea that GRT builds it, I addressed the issue of smoking prohibition by suggesting that the transit enforcement officers would be strictly instructed not to enforce that specific shelter and that no signage would be present in or around that specific shelter. Actually the same provisions would apply to a hospital-owned shelter, on or off the hospital property.

Yes, it’s stupid to depend on selective enforcement, but it’s also stupid to pretend that smokers don’t exist and don’t need to be provided reasonable accommodation. Why should stupidity that is in legislation take precedence over stupidity that works around stupid legislation?

I stand by my suggestions.

I should also point out that I would consider a complaint about people smoking in a purpose-built shelter to be invalid on its face, as unlike the situation with an actual bus shelter or even something like a restaurant patio, the proper and reasonable answer to the complaint is “then don’t go there”.