ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Markster]

Yeah, but you have to walk your bike along the platform... so you may as well dismount before crossing, not after. It's a courtesy thing, as well as a safety thing.

I'm mostly referring to the "gauntlet" of the platform itself, not the gauntlet tracks.
I'm going to be walking my bike through there just as much as I get out and push my car.

[ijmorlan]

A decent question though, as R&T park in particular will be the only crossing point for the line in that area. Maybe Seagram is another spot where the station itself is the primary pedestrian/cycling crossing of the track, and this kind of crossing use is to be expected?

At Seagram there is a crossing immediately south of the platform, all the way across both tracks. Actually one of my “double standard” complaints is that the crossing was not opened before winter came.

[KevinT]

Yeah, but you have to walk your bike along the platform... so you may as well dismount before crossing, not after. It's a courtesy thing, as well as a safety thing.

I'm mostly referring to the "gauntlet" of the platform itself, not the gauntlet tracks.
I'm going to be walking my bike through there just as much as I get out and push my car.

The west entrance connects to the south end of the platform and the east entrance to the north end, so you have to traverse the platform itself if crossing from west to east.  I'm not sure that making those right angled turns and traversing from end to end is even reasonably possible without dismounting your bike.  I think that's why Canard is saying that you may as well just dismount before crossing.

[timc]

I am so done with fences.  No more fences!!!!  

Those poles are for construction fencing for the new Evolv1 building.

[Canard]

I'm mostly referring to the "gauntlet" of the platform itself, not the gauntlet tracks.
I'm going to be walking my bike through there just as much as I get out and push my car.

That's a cute analogy, except nobody is driving their car along the platform mowing down people waiting, and risking driving off the edge of said platform into an oncoming train (and scaring the shit out of the LRV operator).

I dunno, for me it's as much about safety as the optics of showing folks that cyclists can be courteous and respectful of others in tight quarters.

I've seen signs in other cities expressly prohibiting cycling on Light Rail platforms (usually not a problem in subways, so there aren't signs - but LRT is very accessible, so it's more of a potential issue).

Sidebar: Last night was the first time I finally managed to cycle the entire LRT route, from head to tail - 37 km in all! Figuring out how to get down to Fairway (safely and comfortably) was the last hurdle for me.

[dunkalunk]

I'm mostly referring to the "gauntlet" of the platform itself, not the gauntlet tracks.
I'm going to be walking my bike through there just as much as I get out and push my car.

That's a cute analogy, except nobody is driving their car along the platform mowing down people waiting, and risking driving off the edge of said platform into an oncoming train (and scaring the shit out of the LRV operator).

I dunno, for me it's as much about safety as the optics of showing folks that cyclists can be courteous and respectful of others in tight quarters.

I've seen signs in other cities expressly prohibiting cycling on Light Rail platforms (usually not a problem in subways, so there aren't signs - but LRT is very accessible, so it's more of a potential issue).

Sidebar: Last night was the first time I finally managed to cycle the entire LRT route, from head to tail - 37 km in all! Figuring out how to get down to Fairway (safely and comfortably) was the last hurdle for me.

I think what Markster is getting at here is that the people on bikes who are not dismounting are not the ones getting on the train, but using the designated trail crossing to continue along the trail they are on. They'd be crossing perpendicular to the track, not using the platform as a cycling trail paralell to the track.

[Canard]

I think what Markster is getting at here is that the people on bikes who are not dismounting are not the ones getting on the train, but using the designated trail crossing to continue along the trail they are on. They'd be crossing perpendicular to the track, not using the platform as a cycling trail paralell to the track.

   

[dunkalunk]

Canard, this may be what you're interpereting from current conditions, but it's not what it will end up like. No trail connection between Wes Graham Way and Phillip existed previously. This is what is actually planned from 2013 documents. If anyone has anything more recent from an offical source, please share. I wasn't able to find anything detailed from the City of Waterloo site.

[KevinL]

Whoah. If they are indeed building that second connection to Wes Graham, I don't think any of the (clearly necessary) earthworks have begun, yet.

[Canard]

Wasn't aware that that was what they're doing - thanks!  There's certainly no evidence of that happening right now, however, and none of the drawings I've seen show that particular configuration.  They also would need to have this completed in the next month or so - because all of the stations along the Waterloo Spur test track have to be 100% complete before LRV testing and burn-in can begin.

But if they are, that's great!  There would then be absolutely zero excuse to ride your bike along the platform.

[KevinL]

I've just gone back to this photo of Canard's from the other day...



...and it looks like there's just the one crossing-signal pair at the far left, on the Philip side. Maybe the additional path was scrapped at some point after all...

[Pheidippides]

Maybe the additional path was scrapped at some point after all...

Yes, probably right after they realized they'd blown the budget re-doing all those concrete fixes. Probably why we can't have pulsating platform lights too.



At least the differences at R&T station seem fixable after the fact.

[danbrotherston]

Canard, this may be what you're interpereting from current conditions, but it's not what it will end up like. No trail connection between Wes Graham Way and Phillip existed previously. This is what is actually planned from 2013 documents. If anyone has anything more recent from an offical source, please share. I wasn't able to find anything detailed from the City of Waterloo site.

That is by far my favourite link I've seen here so far. That's a huge trove of information. Sadly much of it seems to be a huge trove of wishful thinking, it's amazing how different some things look from the plans. Some things (Waterloo Park) look much better than the plans, some things (R&T Park) appear worse. Still, it's not done yet. Very sad to see that the renders make things like no/small curbs, smaller poles, lack of gates, all look far more pedestrian scale. Even things like bricked crosswalks look great in the render, and make a road look more pedestrian oriented.

[Markster]

I happened to see a tweet this evening that encapsulates my feeling on it quite well:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It's an accessibility ramp with a stair in it. It's a bridge with a hole. It's a railway with a gap. It's planning for conflict and failure.</p>&mdash; David Reevely (@davidreevely) <a href="https://twitter.com/davidreevely/status/847615289005006848">March 31, 2017</a></blockquote>

[KevinL]

When the trail was announced to Albert, it was for general connectivity in the area, not just for LRT access. If a cyclist only wants to connect but must now bow to the needs of non-cycling infrastructure they're passing through, it does give the impression they are not being treated as seriously as they expect.