ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[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.

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!!!!!”

[MidTowner]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

[KevinT]

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...

[KevinL]

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.

[danbrotherston]

@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.

[tomh009]

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.

[plam]

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.

[ijmorlan]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

[Pheidippides]

...
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...

They could have fit it, they chose not to:

Based on the final configuration at Frederick and Duke it looks like they could have extended a sidewalk boulevard/platform right to Duke had they not placed the utility boxes on the south side in such an awkward place. The sidewalk jogs south, the road jogs north. Had the road just gone straight there would be 1.0-1.5m available to use the middle of the road to combine with they >1m curb boulevard the did managed to fit in the middle.

[ijmorlan]

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.

Poor characterization of what I think. I know that everybody does make their own value judgements about the stupidity of rules, and that most people go ahead and break them sometimes. My opinion is that at least some of the time people should judge rules to be stupid, and go ahead and break them. In some cases, there can be a reasonable debate about which rules are stupid, and exactly how much so. In this particular case (OK, fine, let’s just limit to the GRH case for simplicity), it is indisputable that the rules are stupid. There is simply no reason at all why people should not approach the platform from the Mt. Hope St. end.

I should also point out that I haven’t said anything specifically about mid-block crossings. At Frederick St. it’s about access directly from Duke St.; at GRH while one could do a mid-block crossing, it’s really about access from the next street to the north. Although in a setting where one only has to cross a single direction of traffic (either at all, or at a time), mid-block crossings done carefully are probably safer than at an intersection where vehicles can be turning in every direction.

Finally, it is to me conspicuous that you have not answered my question: how fast do you drive on the 401?

[Canard]

Ph - you are making the assumption that the (very narrow) width of concrete is suitable for passage. It likely is (very) not and would present a safety hazard.

[zanate]

The current configuration of Frederick station is bordering on entrapment. Build an apparent crossing point with textured concrete and everything, and then slap up a sign saying don't use it?

The decision making process here is in compete breakdown.

The draw for people to access that side of the platform is going to be so strong that this apparent invitation is a problem. If we actually want to succeed in stopping people walking in/out that side of the platform, then we should stop debating the morality and intelligence of pedestrians and just put some fences up already.

Hey, I know a guy who does fences.

[ijmorlan]

Ph - you are making the assumption that the (very narrow) width of concrete is suitable for passage.  It likely is (very) not and would present a safety hazard.

That’s what I mean about the Frederick case being different from the GRH case. At Frederick, the intersection should have been designed slightly differently so that the centre median would be wide enough for a path from the intersection to the platform. At GRH, though, the layout is fine as it is; the only problem is with the exact elevation of the concrete, leading to barriers for people who need a level surface.