ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[timc]

Speaking of hack jobs on platforms, am I the only one who has noticed a broken panel at the UW station? I think it has looked like crazed glass for months.

[Canard]

Tom, there needs to be a spec and oversight. The same people who did the station design should do the hardware design, that’s all I’m saying.

If you have two parties that don’t talk and don’t care and don’t look at what each other are doing, you get a hideous mishmash of shit that looks awful, which is 99% the case in life and I can’t stand it. Everything should look the same and feel consistent and wonderful.

[ijmorlan]

Tom, there needs to be a spec and oversight. The same people who did the station design should do the hardware design, that’s all I’m saying.

If you have two parties that don’t talk and don’t care and don’t look at what each other are doing, you get a hideous mishmash of shit that looks awful, which is 99% the case in life and I can’t stand it. Everything should look the same and feel consistent and wonderful.

Absolutely. The stations already have displays and other visual components. The new ones need to look like part of the same design, not a poorly-considered add-on.

[tomh009]

Tom, there needs to be a spec and oversight. The same people who did the station design should do the hardware design, that’s all I’m saying.

If you have two parties that don’t talk and don’t care and don’t look at what each other are doing, you get a hideous mishmash of shit that looks awful, which is 99% the case in life and I can’t stand it. Everything should look the same and feel consistent and wonderful.

Absolutely. The stations already have displays and other visual components. The new ones need to look like part of the same design, not a poorly-considered add-on.

But it's just an RfEOI at this point, so the spec will (hopefully) come later.

I assume the region has someone else selected for the software already.

[Pheidippides]

The hardware limitations are already pretty specific in the bid document.

  EOI2018-05 Bid Document.pdf (Size: 334.26 KB / Downloads: 211)

[Canard]

Nothing about design language.

[bgb_ca]

The hardware limitations are already pretty specific in the bid document.

If I read that right, I'm guessing they are planning displays like they have at the terminals?

[KevinL]

At this point it's a feasibility request - if we buy this many screens, what's the cost, what's the general logistics - and when they do go ahead, the order will be far more specific.

[Pheidippides]

Nothing about design language.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by design then. Almost every quality of the object (shape, size, colour, texture, material, positioning, spacing, form, etc.) is described:

• Digital display will be 32” (your favourite units of measure too!)
  
• Colour:preferred grey, can be black;
  
• orientation: both portrait and landscape;
  
• Antiglare screen;
  
• Existing infrastructure should be used 
  
• the horizontal canopy beam is recommended.
  
• Preferred 2.0 m clearance to be provided under signage housing. Portrait orientation preferred.
  

Will it have sleek and curvy lines or boxy and sharp edges? Who know that is to be determined; as long as it meets the other requirements anything goes.

There will likely have information displayed in a large AODA compliant font and display information in similar manner to the Nextbus screens in the terminals now.



I am getting frustrated seeing all the deficiency work being done on sidewalk panels that must only be out of compliance by millimetres or a degree or two of slope, but the major limitations in some of the station approaches (e.g. Willis Way, GRH) remain unaddressed. I guess that is the way it needs to be until the system is completely handed over and completed to "spec" since changes the original specifications is too costly.

[ijmorlan]

I am getting frustrated seeing all the deficiency work being done on sidewalk panels that must only be out of compliance by millimetres or a degree or two of slope, but the major limitations in some of the station approaches (e.g. Willis Way, GRH) remain unaddressed. I guess that is the way it needs to be until the system is completely handed over and completed to "spec" since changes the original specifications is too costly.

The Region could waive certain deficiencies — accept a payment that is less than the cost of replacing the panel. If it really is inconsequential. Might take a lot of figuring out which ones are appropriate to waive and which ones really ought to be fixed however.

Agreed it’s pretty ridiculous that the missing crossings haven’t been put in. My list includes all the way across Caroline immediately south of Father David Bauer, across Caroline road lanes at the north end of Willis Way station, and across King (both directions) at the north end of the Grand River Hospital stop. All of these locations will see significant pedestrian crossing because it’s obviously needed, but they are inaccessible due to a lack of curb cuts and not signed and painted for such.

[neonjoe]

Saw a car doing the reverse of shame out of the LRT tracks in the medium of King by Conestogo. The car definitely wasn't a contractor vehicle as the person was having real trouble with their reversing job. (Forward and back numerous times)

[Pheidippides]

The Region could waive certain deficiencies — accept a payment that is less than the cost of replacing the panel. If it really is inconsequential. Might take a lot of figuring out which ones are appropriate to waive and which ones really ought to be fixed however.

I don't think the region could do that. It would open them up to law suits. If someone were to trip or fall they could just point to the deficienicies list and say "you knew of the problem and didn't do anything. You were negligent in your upkeep. Show me the money.".

[danbrotherston]

The Region could waive certain deficiencies — accept a payment that is less than the cost of replacing the panel. If it really is inconsequential. Might take a lot of figuring out which ones are appropriate to waive and which ones really ought to be fixed however.

I don't think the region could do that. It would open them up to law suits. If someone were to trip or fall they could just point to the deficienicies list and say "you knew of the problem and didn't do anything. You were negligent in your upkeep. Show me the money.".

The thing is, we aren't talking about "trip hazards" here, I'm sure some engineer has measured and these things are out by a few millimeters, but the differences are imperceptible, it looks like they're just punching out sidewalk tiles at random.  There's only a few that I've seen that are really problematic, and they haven't even gotten to those ones yet.

The *real* hazards with the project are numerous and substantial.

And, the city/region has already demonstrates it believes red paint protects them from lawsuits when sidewalks are 1-2 inches out of vertical alignment.

[Canard]

The tolerances specified on the engineering drawings determine if it is a problem or not.

The story of my life:

Assembler: “Something isn’t working on the machine you designed.”
Me: :: measures critical part :: “These locating pins are out of tolerance.”
A: “Oh yeah, we saw that when they got machined, but thought they looked good enough.”

Sigh.....

[jeffster]

Saw a car doing the reverse of shame out of the LRT tracks in the medium of King by Conestogo. The car definitely wasn't a contractor vehicle as the person was having real trouble with their reversing job. (Forward and back numerous times)

The nice thing about new cars is that they have the rear camera and that usually makes things easier for *most* people. Judging by your comment this person likely didn't have a camera and was a poor driver to begin with.

I wonder how many have gone into the tracks on Charles at Borden? Judging by the black marks on the side portion of the curb beside the track, it looks to be a significant number.