Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 15 Vote(s) - 3.93 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit
(11-26-2018, 09:07 PM)KevinT Wrote: ...
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:
(02-17-2018, 10:54 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: 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.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply


(11-26-2018, 09:44 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(11-26-2018, 08:09 PM)MidTowner Wrote: 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?
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
(11-26-2018, 10:56 PM)Canard Wrote: 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.
Reply
Did anyone check out the station tours this past weekend? We were out of town and couldn't make it.
Reply
How something is designed gives cues about how it should be used. If a door has a handle that looks like it should be pulled, people will pull on it, even if there is a sign that says push right above it. Red generally means stop, green generally means go - it's why newer standards encourage use of the green running man symbol instead of the red exit text. This same principle is true for our built environment. People rarely follow the speed limit posted on Westmount north of University because of the street is designed for speeds far in excess of the limit. Conversely, speeding is rarely a problem on King Street, as the street is designed for a low limit.

Similarly, if certain behaviour is desired, it is poor design to rely on rules or procedures to achieve the desired outcome. If a machine cannot safely operate in both Mode A and Mode B, it should have an interlock preventing that mode of operation, not rely on rules or signage. If you don't want people to walk on the grass, you either need to fence of the grass, or make the path follow the desire lines so people have no reason to go on the grass. If you don't want people to illegally download music, give them the option to obtain the music legally online.

Sure, we can point out that people are breaking rules and laws, and if only they would stop, our problem would be solved, but that's just hand wringing and doesn't do anything to address the actual problem. We also have the option of considering how people are going to use our infrastructure when we design it, and anticipate their behaviour and take steps to either accommodate their desired behaviour, or prevent it where it is problematic. This is where the LRT already has scores of deficiencies. When driving up King and the tracks switch from the outside of the lane to the inside and vice versa, the design is presently not sufficient to make it intuitively clear where drivers are intended to go, and in fact, there are several cues that point them in the wrong direction. Until this is addressed, we will continue to see drivers stuck on the LRT tracks in those areas. The design cues at the Frederick Station explicitly invite pedestrians to access the station from both sides; until the design is adjusted to correct these cues, there will be issues with people complying with signage.

This is not something that is unique to ION by the way, but is found throughout the public sector as well as industry.
Reply


(11-27-2018, 10:42 AM)jamincan Wrote: How something is designed gives cues about how it should be used.

<snip>

Very well said, all of it, including the snipped paragraphs.
...K
Reply
Meanwhile, the Rapid Transit team have captured the shot I dreamed about taking back when construction first started, but abandoned when I learned of how nearly impossible it is to fly a drone within the Region:



More of this, please!!
Reply
I saw that on facebook. So nice!

As an aside, I still haven't seen an LRV out testing yet, but the other day I come home to this from my wife: "oh hey, I saw an LRT train when I was out today." Seriously?!?! hah
Reply
(11-26-2018, 10:56 PM)Canard Wrote: 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.

I agree that the current median is not intended for walking on, my point was that it should have never have been built that narrow to begin with. What’s more of a safety hazard is people using a space for purposes other than it was designed and intended.
 
They have created a safety hazard by not thinking about how humans will actually use the space. No one getting off the train and heading to KPL or Centre in the Square etc. is going to take a huge distance and time penalty (94m penalty for one-car train, 156m penalty for a two-car train) to walk back to King, cross the street, and walk back towards Duke.
 
They will take the shortest path sign or no sign.
 
Platform is 2.7m wide where it currently ends.
Platform narrows to 1.3m in middle.
Platform end is 1.5m.
   

 
They needed to add 27.3sq.m to the median to make it the same width as the end of the platform.
   
 
Which they could have easily have accommodated on the other side (it wouldn’t even take away from usable sidewalk space since no one can walk between the utility boxes and the road anyway):
   
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
(11-27-2018, 06:49 PM)Canard Wrote: Meanwhile, the Rapid Transit team have captured the shot I dreamed about taking back when construction first started, but abandoned when I learned of how nearly impossible it is to fly a drone within the Region:



More of this, please!!

Drones are super hard to fly, as well a regulation, but this video was pretty good. No love for the music, though...
Reply
New drones are super easy to fly. You don’t even fly them anymore - you add waypoints and they fly themselves, so you can focus on the cinematography.

Ph - you should work for the Region! What was he Project Team’s response when this issue was brought up at the public consultations?
Reply


(11-28-2018, 06:27 AM)Canard Wrote: Ph - you should work for the Region! What was he Project Team’s response when this issue was brought up at the public consultations?

I don’t believe there were any public consultations on the detailed design. For that matter, I’m not aware the issue of bike lanes on King St. was even discussed at the public consultations.
Reply
(11-27-2018, 11:40 PM)Pheidippides Wrote:
(11-26-2018, 10:56 PM)Canard Wrote: 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.

I agree that the current median is not intended for walking on, my point was that it should have never have been built that narrow to begin with. What’s more of a safety hazard is people using a space for purposes other than it was designed and intended.
 
They have created a safety hazard by not thinking about how humans will actually use the space. No one getting off the train and heading to KPL or Centre in the Square etc. is going to take a huge distance and time penalty (94m penalty for one-car train, 156m penalty for a two-car train) to walk back to King, cross the street, and walk back towards Duke.
 
They will take the shortest path sign or no sign.
 
Platform is 2.7m wide where it currently ends.
Platform narrows to 1.3m in middle.
Platform end is 1.5m.


 
They needed to add 27.3sq.m to the median to make it the same width as the end of the platform.

 
Which they could have easily have accommodated on the other side (it wouldn’t even take away from usable sidewalk space since no one can walk between the utility boxes and the road anyway):

Thanks for the detailed analysis. This gives me some hope that it might be corrected in the future; since it appears it can be fixed without changing where the tracks are, it could be done as part of a future renovation of the street. We just need to get the road designers to understand that there is a problem.

In the meantime, people will probably walk on the tracks. Fortunately, that isn’t that bad in this case: either they just got off a train and are leaving the stop, in which case they can walk behind the departing vehicle, with another not due for several minutes; or they are walking to the stop, in which case they will normally be facing train traffic, which furthermore needs to stop at the station before proceeding. Not ideal, but also nowhere near as dangerous as walking in a motor vehicle lane.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 16 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links