ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[bgb_ca]

I just saw an idiot in uptown blocking the track turn lane heading into waterloo public square blocking a train (501? It had no number) from going though, despite the train blowing his horn several times. The train had to wait for the lights to go green, and the driver to clear the intersection before waiting for the next cycle.

Just for interest, which direction was the car going? I’m guessing the car driver thought they were avoiding running a red, even though if they’re on the track they must be in the intersection and therefore must exit the intersection forthwith (and if they can’t, they’re already running a red because they entered the intersection without ensuring they can leave).

Towards conestoga mall

[ijmorlan]

Isn’t that what cowcatchers are for?

[ijmorlan]

Towards conestoga mall

Thanks. I have often noticed vehicles stopped “in the intersection”, although usually they actually fit between the LRT and freight tracks. People seem to have a problem with stop lines that appear further back than expected.

[danbrotherston]

Towards conestoga mall

Thanks. I have often noticed vehicles stopped “in the intersection”, although usually they actually fit between the LRT and freight tracks. People seem to have a problem with stop lines that appear further back than expected.

Lol.  People have a problem with stop lines in general, but ones that are farther back are even more problematic.

In the Netherlands, as I recall, the traffic signals are on the near side of the road, and usually to the side of traffic. This means drivers rarely overrun a stop line or block a crosswalk as they can't see the light if they do. Of course, we put the light at the far side so that they can see the light when they overrun the stop line--like...that is the purpose of putting the light on the far side.  Just one of those interesting little differences.

[panamaniac]

In this particular case, where the car would be well beyond the stop line, what would be the correct response to the horn of the LRT? Proceed through the red light and crosswalk?

[ijmorlan]

You can no longer turn right on red from Caroline to Erb heading west (away from uptown). It's apparently causing some significant traffic backups.

I waited to respond until morning, after I had a chance to see for myself, because even my jaded self had trouble believing our traffic engineers would do something so stupid.

Sure enough, there is indeed a “no right turn on red” sign on southbound Caroline at Erb.

When I got there, southbound traffic was dutifully waiting at the red. An LRV arrived, and I snuck across with my bike on the all-red before the gates started to come down. The LRV went through, and then the lights went to green … for Erb. Traffic continued to wait. Finally Caroline got a green, by which time traffic was backed up around the curve, probably all the way to Bridgeport (the LRV happened to be on the southbound track, so Caroline straight-through traffic should have got a green, but that’s another story). Note that this was at about 09:30 this morning, hardly the maximum traffic portion of the day.

When the light is red, the only traffic which conflicts with the right turn is pedestrians crossing to and from the island. If it works for car traffic to yield to pedestrians on the green, then they’re capable of yielding to pedestrians on the red. So no matter ones position on right-turn-on-red, it should definitely be allowed here. Also, side note, it’s not clear to me that regular intersection traffic lights control separated right turn lanes. If the light controls it, what is the yield sign for? Without the island it would go without saying that turning traffic must yield to pedestrians. So really the no-right-turn sign should be considered moot, as there is no traffic light controlling the right turn lane.

This right turn lane is already a 1-lane bottleneck in what is mostly a 2- or 3-lane route across town; to subject it to an utterly pointless interruption every time the light turns red is just insane.

I wonder what they think they’re doing? My already low opinion of our traffic engineers has gone down still further.

[ijmorlan]

In this particular case, where the car would be well beyond the stop line, what would be the correct response to the horn of the LRT?  Proceed through the red light and crosswalk?

The correct response to being past the stop line is to continue on out of the “box”. If this is not possible (due to traffic filling the lane ahead) then one must not enter the “box”. With correct driving there would be no need for the LRT to blow its horn and therefore no need to respond to the horn.

[MidTowner]

You can no longer turn right on red from Caroline to Erb heading west (away from uptown). It's apparently causing some significant traffic backups.

...So no matter ones position on right-turn-on-red, it should definitely be allowed here. Also, side note, it’s not clear to me that regular intersection traffic lights control separated right turn lanes. If the light controls it, what is the yield sign for? Without the island it would go without saying that turning traffic must yield to pedestrians. So really the no-right-turn sign should be considered moot, as there is no traffic light controlling the right turn lane...

What if one's position is that it probably shouldn't be allowed anywhere?

[danbrotherston]

...So no matter ones position on right-turn-on-red, it should definitely be allowed here. Also, side note, it’s not clear to me that regular intersection traffic lights control separated right turn lanes. If the light controls it, what is the yield sign for? Without the island it would go without saying that turning traffic must yield to pedestrians. So really the no-right-turn sign should be considered moot, as there is no traffic light controlling the right turn lane...

What if one's position is that it probably shouldn't be allowed anywhere?

The challenge here is it isn't actually a right on red, or, specifically, there is no conflicting traffic to even look for.

This intersection could be designed far far better....the right turn lane should have a separate light simply to separate the flow of trail traffic, from the right turning vehicles.  That would eliminate the congestion, and make it safer for trail users.

[MidTowner]

[quote pid='69527' dateline='1559055514']

The challenge here is it isn't actually a right on red, or, specifically, there is no conflicting traffic to even look for.

This intersection could be designed far far better....the right turn lane should have a separate light simply to separate the flow of trail traffic, from the right turning vehicles.  That would eliminate the congestion, and make it safer for trail users.

[/quote]

There's no conflicting motor vehicle traffic, but there are people on foot. Theoretically, the yield sign gives those people the right of way at all times, but in practice motorists tend to ignore signs and tend to obey signals. I don't think people are generally given the right of way crossing slip lanes, even when motorists have a yield sign.

I guess a separate light for the right turn would be a complete solution. It's too bad the intersection is such a mess, but it is, so that probably would make sense.

[goggolor]

I pass that way on a bike every day, and motorists are mostly good about yielding (except for the one guy on a Harley who got mad at the person in front of him letting some pedestrians past, and screamed "This is not a crosswalk"). However, with this change I wonder if motorists will be as patient.

[chutten]

I pass that way on a bike every day, and motorists are mostly good about yielding (except for the one guy on a Harley who got mad at the person in front of him letting some pedestrians past, and screamed "This is not a crosswalk"). However, with this change I wonder if motorists will be as patient.

I wonder what that screaming driver thought it was... a banana?

[danbrotherston]

I pass that way on a bike every day, and motorists are mostly good about yielding (except for the one guy on a Harley who got mad at the person in front of him letting some pedestrians past, and screamed "This is not a crosswalk"). However, with this change I wonder if motorists will be as patient.

That is bizarre, and just shows how little drivers understand of traffic rules.  It *is* a crosswalk *and* peds have the right of way, which is actually not true for most crosswalks.  Almost anything is a crosswalk.

As for patient motorists, HA! congestion rarely makes motorists patient. I don't find this corner all that bad...I do find it funny how careful drivers are given there isn't any conflicting traffic, frankly, the design of the intersection is truly awful, for pretty much every user.

[goggolor]

A couple tidbits I noticed on Twitter today:

1) "On June 22 Downtown Kitchener will be celebrating the launch of the iON with a massive Downtown party"
https://twitter.com/GKWCC/status/1133370868833357825

2) "Fare vending machines at Conestoga Station, Allen Station and Kitchener Market Station are now ready to use! Credit and debit only until ION service starts".
https://twitter.com/GRT_ROW/status/1133388960699314181

Although it looks like cards sold from these machines will have a $5 charge, so if you need a card get one from the terminal or at an event while they're still free.

[ijmorlan]

What if one's position is that it probably shouldn't be allowed anywhere?

If, after seeing this particular intersection, one still holds that opinion, without modification for local circumstances, then one is not thinking clearly.

As I said in my previous message, there is no conflicting vehicle traffic, and the conflict with pedestrian traffic is exactly the same on red as it is on green, so that is not a colorable reason for disallowing right turn on red at this location.

What they should have done is had two lanes turning the corner, with the turn lane far separated from the main intersection, with a separate traffic light controlling the conflict between the turn lane and crossing pedestrian traffic. The light should be green for pedestrians, except when triggered by vehicle sensors, which should give a maximum of a certain fraction of the time to vehicles when needed. That way at low traffic times it would in the limit be always green both for pedestrians and for motor vehicles not exceeding the target speed.

Starting from the existing situation, the thing to do is probably to install a separate light to control the turn lane. The sensor idea should still work to avoid the need for pedestrians to press a button and to give pedestrians green time automatically whenever there are no vehicles. So the only deficiencies would be the 1-lane bottleneck in the flow and the unnecessarily small pedestrian island.