ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Pheidippides]

I've noticed the Metrolinx Twitter feeds are sharing promotional stuff for Alstom now...

Isn't that a conflict of interest? Wouldn't future bidders be able to claim favouritism?

Willis platform got some advertising-like light boxes:
   

Ironically the Willis platform, which was shown in all the earlier mock-ups with a bus shelter like enclosure, is only getting a wind break:
   

The embossed pavement crossings are showing up all around uptown now. There is even one in the parking lot of the "shops" crossing the Ion and freight track.

[Canard]

I was told by the project team that the platform at Willis Way was too narrow to build an entire enclosure. It's narrower than other platforms due to the geometry in the area.

I can't wait to see these new pavement markings/embossings! I was very excited to see we were getting them in the project agremeent; I just haven't been up that way for a couple of days now. Things are happening so fast!

[Pheidippides]

Allen got a wind break too instead of a enclosure too. Lots of room there.

[KevinL]

I've noticed the Metrolinx Twitter feeds are sharing promotional stuff for Alstom now...

Isn't that a conflict of interest? Wouldn't future bidders be able to claim favouritism?

Well, it's more of, 'we're going to be running these trains and here are their features'. They can claim they're just being informational.

[Canard]

Are you sure? Allen is narrower too. I don't have the numbers handy but it may have been narrower than what would be permitted to allow people to safely pass by either side of the enclosure. The enclosure probably has a minimum size for ADA or whatever that dictated all of this. Even if it was a few cm too narrow for the platform if it was not deemed safe then it would not be permitted to be added.

[danbrotherston]

I thought I saw them putting up an enclosure at Allen, but I could have misunderstood what I was seeing.

Regardless, this is a bit frustrating, none of these things are "too small" as in, there aren't buildings on the street which would have forced a choice between enclosures and demolishing a building, all it is a choice not to expropriate more land......and it's winter here, enclosures should be a minimum.

[darts]

I thought I saw them putting up an enclosure at Allen, but I could have misunderstood what I was seeing.

Regardless, this is a bit frustrating, none of these things are "too small" as in, there aren't buildings on the street which would have forced a choice between enclosures and demolishing a building, all it is a choice not to expropriate more land......and it's winter here, enclosures should be a minimum.

at ainslie station it is just a windbreak, and they have the entre property

[ijmorlan]

I thought I saw them putting up an enclosure at Allen, but I could have misunderstood what I was seeing.

Regardless, this is a bit frustrating, none of these things are "too small" as in, there aren't buildings on the street which would have forced a choice between enclosures and demolishing a building, all it is a choice not to expropriate more land......and it's winter here, enclosures should be a minimum.

I agree. With respect to Willis Way, there is tons of space — the LRT track could have been installed a bit further over, leaving as much space as desired between the road lane and the LRT lane, or the LRT stop could have been put on the sidewalk side.

Allen is a bit narrow as built, but was previously planned to be built as two separate stops immediately north and west of the intersection, where there would have been no shortage of space.

It’s this sort of thing that leads to me disrespecting expertise. They give an answer that clearly makes no sense, not in that it is unintuitive (many truths are unintuitive), but in that upon reflection it doesn’t actually explain the result and instead suggests that the answer may be a post hoc rationalization of a decision that actually was made carelessly.

[Markster]

Allen is a bit narrow as built, but was previously planned to be built as two separate stops immediately north and west of the intersection, where there would have been no shortage of space.

Yeah, having the two stops on either side of the intersection saves you a couple feet of width.
But split stop stations are more expensive. They need to have twice as much hardware: shelters, platform walls, fare payment machines, lights, etc. I suspect that every station was consolidated into island stations as a cost-saving measure. I guess the extra land needed was cheaper than doubling station costs.

[Canard]

As always: we don't know what the restrictions were on the designers. It's not fair to simply say "they could have just...".

As a designer myself, I immediately start ignoring someone when they use the "j" word when talking to me.

[ijmorlan]

Allen is a bit narrow as built, but was previously planned to be built as two separate stops immediately north and west of the intersection, where there would have been no shortage of space.

Yeah, having the two stops on either side of the intersection saves you a couple feet of width.
But split stop stations are more expensive. They need to have twice as much hardware: shelters, platform walls, fare payment machines, lights, etc.  I suspect that every station was consolidated into island stations as a cost-saving measure. I guess the extra land needed was cheaper than doubling station costs.

Good point, yes. I actually prefer consolidated stops, in general, for a variety of reasons. In this case, it would be better for them to say something like “Allen is a bit narrow, which is a consequence of choosing to consolidate the NB and SB stops into one in the centre of the road, for [reasons].” This would be more of an “expla[i]n”ation than what they actually said.

[ijmorlan]

As always: we don't know what the restrictions were on the designers. It's not fair to simply say "they could have just...".

As a designer myself, I immediately start ignoring someone when they use the "j" word when talking to me.

They could still do a better job of explaining. Why is Willis Way narrow, anyway? It sure looks like some slight adjustments that would be very expensive now but which would have cost almost nothing at the design stage would have left them with more space on the platform. Just saying “geometry” is effectively using a noise word that doesn’t explain why the LRT track couldn’t have been shifted over a couple of feet, an amount that doesn’t require massive curves.

Another example: I suggested putting a platform for the tourist train between the freight and LRT tracks at Northfield. Response: “not enough space”. Nonsense! There is obviously tons of space, not necessarily within the then-existing right-of-way, but by expanding it slightly. Now, I can’t say if it would actually be cost-effective to pay for more real estate to have a wider right-of-way there, but it doesn’t make sense to say that there isn’t enough space. If they had decided a TPSS had to go there they wouldn’t have vetoed the location just because they needed a few more feet. Maybe if there were large buildings there that are obviously not up for expropriation (which actually may be a legitimate reason why Allen platform can’t be wider), but not with the actual surroundings at Northfield.

Or in the park, when the tree-cutting discussion came up. Somebody, I think a Regional councillor, said something about the railway right-of-way being wider than many people realize. But that is totally irrelevant! We don’t cut trees that are in a wide portion of the railway right-of-way just because they happen to be in the right-of-way; and if the right-of-way was too narrow they would widen it by taking land from the park. So the existing right-of-way is irrelevant to the question of just exactly how many trees they really had to remove. What was said makes no sense, and undermines my default belief in the correctness of their thinking.

[Canard]

I'm just saying, none of us are privy to the behind-the-scenes work that these engineers and planners are doing. I trust them implicitly. It's not like they're intentionally designing things to be shitty.

[danbrotherston]

I think this was ijmorlans point. Trusting them implicitly takes trust. When they give obviously bullshit answers that breaks the trust. Maybe there is a good reason but if "right of way was to expensive to acquire" then that's fine but we shouldn't just BS it.

[Canard]

4/5 - Sunday, June 18, 2017

Well, they fixed it!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">...uh... closer? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wrLRT?src=hash">#wrLRT</a> <a href="https://t.co/dPPM0Y8ugk">pic.twitter.com/dPPM0Y8ugk</a></p>&mdash; iain (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/878359368995045376">June 23, 2017</a></blockquote>

I think they may have literally told their guys to "just go there and flip the signs around", and that's what they did.

Also, I broke the law today.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Nice to see trees going in at <a href="https://twitter.com/WaterlooPrk">@WaterlooPrk</a>! And our friend <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DismountSign?src=hash">#DismountSign</a> is back! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/wrLRT?src=hash">#wrLRT</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BikeWR?src=hash">#BikeWR</a> <a href="https://t.co/a3pYyJT3Qu">pic.twitter.com/a3pYyJT3Qu</a></p>&mdash; iain (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/878358301007900673">June 23, 2017</a></blockquote>