ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Viewfromthe42]

It's not about naming, it's just station placement. Whatever side of the tracks the station is on, because of the anchor wall, will direct people to stand on the rail side of the station, looking out over the rails and whatever is behind them. Because the stop at Willis Way is on the east side of the tracks, people will be on the west side of the platform, looking west onto the parking lots and backyards found there, rather than a more active and continuing to become more active eastern view.

[Canard]

I still don't really see the problem. Remember, buses will be using the East side of the platform here.

I guess a better question: how would you prefer the station be configured?

[Markster]

They have the concrete curbs in and now they are starting to lay the tracks at Victoria and Charles Streets.

Who the heck is the engineer designing these intersections? What the heck is with the inconsistent applications of curb radius?

The upper left curb radius is travel-lane-to-travel-lane. It ignores the LRT lane as a possible destination for right turning traffic.
The lower right curb is LRT-lane-to-travel-lane. It presumes that traffic will turn from the LRT lane to the side street.

The former is so much better for pedestrians. But why are they so inconsistent?

[KevinL]

buses will be using the East side of the platform here.

Ah! Hadn't realized. That makes the platform placement more obvious, now.

[Canard]

The upper left curb radius is travel-lane-to-travel-lane.

No it's not - it's a constant radius for a little while, and then is notched out where the LRT track is.  It's tangent to the road lane on Charles, not the LRT lane.  See below (rotate your head 90 degrees; your "upper left" here is actually "upper right"):

   

I genuinely see nothing wrong with this - what is the issue? (help me understand)

 It ignores the LRT lane as a possible destination for right turning traffic.

The LRT lane is never a destination for right-turning traffic!!

The former is so much better for pedestrians.  But why are they so inconsistent?

I don't understand this statement at all - I see a lot of fuss about curb radii but cannot fathom how this makes any different for crossing pedestrians.  What is the issue?

(Wow, the Rapid Transit team really pissed off a lot of people today it seems!)

[GtwoK]

I believe I see what Markster is referring to (well, not in terms of pedestrians, but in terms of turn radius)



The yellow is the traffic flow. Note how from Victoria on to Charles, the traffic turning right "hugs" the shape of the curb, because of the sort of cutout type of shape they've created. That is to say, if the curb continued to follow it's radius (dotted red), it would end up at the edge of the vehicle ROW, effectively being a normal curb at any other intersection.

On the other hand, turning from Victoria into the School of Pharmacy parking lot, the curb radius tangents at the LRT ROW; the right-turning traffic no longer hugs the curb, and the turning raidus is sort of assumed by the driver (though not hard to assume). The red line shows what would have been a better (more consistent) curb alignment. Note how in blue, the cutout curbs would also complete the curve of Victoria St. Looks nicer

I think the complaint is more aesthetics than it is functionality. There's no real consistency as to why some curbs are "cutout" and others aren't.

[Canard]

Oh, THAT I totally get makes no sense. Now I get it - you guys are saying the upper left is correct, and lower right is not. I agree with that! I also agree that drivers would "get it" more if it were correct.

(I still don't see how that has anything to do with pedestrians though)

[kitborn]

Using the Charles/Victoria intersection as an example, what happens to vehicle traffic when the LRT goes through the intersection? Does all traffic get a red signal?

[GtwoK]

Using the Charles/Victoria intersection as an example, what happens to vehicle traffic when the LRT goes through the intersection? Does all traffic get a red signal?

Presumably, after the Charles traffic gets a red, before Victoria turns green, the LRT would get it's Advance signal. After making it through, Victoria would then get its green.

[Viewfromthe42]

The upper left corner serves two purposes: it guides drivers, and it shortens the crossing for pedestrians. Had the upper left curb been designed like the lower right one, it would guide drivers onto the LRT tracks. Since WB Victoria drivers will already theoretically be in the driving lane, turning right to go NB won't see any potential guidance issue. But if you look at the existing curb compared to the red theoretical curb in the bottom right, using the car headed SB as a reference, you add almost 10ft+ of travel for a pedestrian to cross, and you asphalt a very sharp piece of road between the curb and the LRT tracks, one which no car will ever actually drive on.

[Canard]

So basically the "better for pedestrian" thing is just that you stand closer to traffic/spend less time physically crossing the road?

If it stops the practice of pedestrians standing way too close (or over!) the edge of too-wide radius curves, I'm all for it. Sounds like it would kill two birds with one stone.

[GtwoK]

A question about this, now that I'm seeing it again... What's up with Victoria  West of Charles (on the right in this diagram)? It looks like they've removed the left turn lane onto Joseph in favour of a right turn lane onto Joseph? That seems like a... mistake.

[bpoland]

Looking at the diagram, the only thing I can think is that because the stop line for cars is so far back, they figured that a right turn into the pharmacy parking lot would mostly follow the curb. I agree with you though, it would have been nicer to extend the curb outwards -- even if it makes the turn sharper for cars.

[MidTowner]

Looking at the diagram, the only thing I can think is that because the stop line for cars is so far back, they figured that a right turn into the pharmacy parking lot would mostly follow the curb. I agree with you though, it would have been nicer to extend the curb outwards -- even if it makes the turn sharper for cars.

Making the turn sharper for cars should be the point. A wide turn radius encourages taking the turn at unsafe speeds. We should have tighter radii where there are a lot of people on foot or bike.

[Viewfromthe42]

As someone using Victoria and Weber as a crossing daily, I can tell you that the south corner of that intersection is my scariest pedestrian crossing. The gargantuan turning radius means cars don't tend to slow down at all, and their focus tends to be on the curve throughout, only getting onto me at the last screech-to-a-halt second. The giant gap between crosswalks which connect to that corner also winds up lulling drivers into thinking they've passed both, and they'll speed up after passing the first.