ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[panamaniac]

Kitchenerese, eh?  I heard someone say that the faster they work the behinder they get.

I think you would find that if they interviewed more senior representation from Waterloo you would have gotten much of the same response.  It isnt a Kitchener thing.  It is a generational thing...  I am an old guy who grew up and lives in Kitchener, I dont have the same thoughts,.  I participated with the original planning work shops, I have attended open houses, I have voted for government that supports transit infrastructure.  So my point is this, if you are aiming at people from Kitchener being closed minded or mentally slow, try again please.

That was not remotely the point.  It relates to Kitchener's (and, OK, Waterloo"s) heritage and it was intended to be good-humoured and affectionate.

[ijmorlan]

Something new I just spotted today: the far end exits on the platforms at Kitchener Market and Frederick (and presumably Borden and GR Hospital) have wide red signs reading 'emergency exit only'.

So these won't be getting curb cuts after all, it seems.

What about people in wheelchairs who need to make an emergency exit?

What a load of BS. They realized they needed to print signs, but didn’t realize that it is idiotic to have the stops be single-ended.

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.

[KevinL]

[danbrotherston]

Something new I just spotted today: the far end exits on the platforms at Kitchener Market and Frederick (and presumably Borden and GR Hospital) have wide red signs reading 'emergency exit only'.

So these won't be getting curb cuts after all, it seems.

What about people in wheelchairs who need to make an emergency exit?

What a load of BS. They realized they needed to print signs, but didn’t realize that it is idiotic to have the stops be single-ended.

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.

Yeah, so many of the stations, I think, there's no way people thought about this for more than a few minutes.

[jgsz]

I think you would find that if they interviewed more senior representation from Waterloo you would have gotten much of the same response.  It isnt a Kitchener thing.  It is a generational thing...  I am an old guy who grew up and lives in Kitchener, I dont have the same thoughts,.  I participated with the original planning work shops, I have attended open houses, I have voted for government that supports transit infrastructure.  So my point is this, if you are aiming at people from Kitchener being closed minded or mentally slow, try again please.

That was not remotely the point.  It relates to Kitchener's (and, OK, Waterloo"s) heritage and it was intended to be good-humoured and affectionate.

Thanks.

[Rainrider22]

I think you would find that if they interviewed more senior representation from Waterloo you would have gotten much of the same response.  It isnt a Kitchener thing.  It is a generational thing...  I am an old guy who grew up and lives in Kitchener, I dont have the same thoughts,.  I participated with the original planning work shops, I have attended open houses, I have voted for government that supports transit infrastructure.  So my point is this, if you are aiming at people from Kitchener being closed minded or mentally slow, try again please.

That was not remotely the point.  It relates to Kitchener's (and, OK, Waterloo"s) heritage and it was intended to be good-humoured and affectionate.

ok sorry,  sometimes content can be taken out of context without the intonation and inflection of voice...

[Canard]

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.

Yeah! That’s the spirit. God forbid pedestrians actually follow the rules like everyone else.

And people wonder why pedestrians get injured or killed around Light Rail...

[danbrotherston]

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.

Yeah! That’s the spirit. God forbid pedestrians actually follow the rules like everyone else.

And people wonder why pedestrians get injured or killed around Light Rail...

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.

[ijmorlan]

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.

Yeah! That’s the spirit. God forbid pedestrians actually follow the rules like everyone else.

And people wonder why pedestrians get injured or killed around Light Rail...

Another not-on-point response to what I said. In the video the pedestrian is clearly just not watching.

In the places we’re talking about, signs have been installed telling people not to use perfectly viable routes to/from LRT platforms, rather than properly painting them and installing appropriate curb cuts. The same people that watch carefully when they use designed-in accesses will likely also do so when using the unofficial accesses; and the same people who use the unofficial accesses dangerously will probably also cross dangerously at official LRT and non-LRT crossing points.

Minor point: in at least some cases the unofficial accesses are probably narrower than they would have been if they had been designed in. For example, the other access to the stop on Frederick St. is narrow; but still useable by anybody who exercises due care, caution, and awareness of the situation. In other cases, there is nothing wrong with the unofficial accesses at all other than that they are unofficial. For example, the north end of the Grand River stop.

God forbid authorities actually do their job properly like everyone else.

Well, OK, most jobs aren’t done “properly” but I think the point stands.

[panamaniac]

Yeah! That’s the spirit. God forbid pedestrians actually follow the rules like everyone else.

And people wonder why pedestrians get injured or killed around Light Rail...

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.

[tomh009]

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.)

[zanate]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

[ijmorlan]

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.

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?

[ijmorlan]

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.