ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[timc]

As for drivers ignoring the bus-only left turn, I feel like signals could do a lot for that. The signals facing drivers northbound on Caroline should just always be a red light, with a white bar for buses and green arrow for right turns. If a car attempts to make a left they'll just never get a green light, and eventually they'll learn that attempting to turn there is futile (as most won't be willing to blatantly run a red).

As far as I know, a green right turn arrow means that drivers have the right of way. You wouldn't be able to use one at that intersection unless you created a separate pedestrian crossing cycle, or eliminated the crossing on the east side of the intersection.

[danbrotherston]

As for drivers ignoring the bus-only left turn, I feel like signals could do a lot for that. The signals facing drivers northbound on Caroline should just always be a red light, with a white bar for buses and green arrow for right turns. If a car attempts to make a left they'll just never get a green light, and eventually they'll learn that attempting to turn there is futile (as most won't be willing to blatantly run a red).

As far as I know, a green right turn arrow means that drivers have the right of way. You wouldn't be able to use one at that intersection unless you created a separate pedestrian crossing cycle, or eliminated the crossing on the east side of the intersection.

They easily could, and speaking of things that should be green, the ped crossing signals for the north and east legs of the intersection should be on walk while the trains are crossing.

[timc]

the ped crossing signals for the north and east legs of the intersection should be on walk while the trains are crossing.

Agreed. I treat them as such anyway.

[jeffster]

But that's the problem -- people not stopping fully and then checking are creating accidents. Stoping and checking requires you to use your brain, slowing and simply checking doesn't work the same way.

People not checking are creating accidents. People are perfectly capable of stopping, and not checking. Obsessing over whether or not there was a moment in time when the velocity of their car relative to the ground was 0 is counterproductive.

You know what? There are plenty of people that can drink alcohol or get high off of drugs and then drive perfectly safe. There are those that can text and drive and be safer that those that don't. There are those that can drive 180 in a 60 zone and never get into an accident. There are many that can ignore stop signs (like yourself) and never come close to having an incident.

I fit into that category of being able to drive 100 over and do it safely. I don't do it though, because it's against traffic laws and the fines are quite spectacular. I would like to think that I too could do rolling stops and never have an incident, but I don't because it's not as safe as a complete stop. I know that I can't drive under the influence, even Gravol, as safely if I wasn't, therefore I don't. I cannot text and drive safely. I can, though, hold the phone to my ear and still drive just as safe, but I don't because that is considered distracted driving.

What I am saying, though, is that claiming that poor driving habits are safe is just an opinion. My personal experience has been that it's not safe. The law says it is not safe. And if the police are visible, guess what, people obey, and guarantee that you would never do a rolling stop if you saw a police car present.

The recent accidents with the Ion trains have all been the result of poor driving habits -- making turns when not allow, and not fully stopping and checking for clear passage.

[clasher]

I watched someone roll through a red light and right into the ion tracks at Ontario and Charles, the train was far enough away to honk the horn and get the moron to back up in time but apparently the "no right turn" lights, a red light and a stop line aren't enough to keep people from being stupid.

[KevinT]

As far as I know, a green right turn arrow means that drivers have the right of way. You wouldn't be able to use one at that intersection unless you created a separate pedestrian crossing cycle, or eliminated the crossing on the east side of the intersection.

Pedestrian scramble for the win!

[taylortbb]

As for drivers ignoring the bus-only left turn, I feel like signals could do a lot for that. The signals facing drivers northbound on Caroline should just always be a red light, with a white bar for buses and green arrow for right turns. If a car attempts to make a left they'll just never get a green light, and eventually they'll learn that attempting to turn there is futile (as most won't be willing to blatantly run a red).

As far as I know, a green right turn arrow means that drivers have the right of way. You wouldn't be able to use one at that intersection unless you created a separate pedestrian crossing cycle, or eliminated the crossing on the east side of the intersection.

That appears to only apply to left turns and flashing greens.

Flashing green
(13) A driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular flashing green indication or a solid or flashing left turn green arrow indication in conjunction with a circular green indication and facing the indication may, despite subsection 141 (5), proceed forward or turn left or right unless otherwise directed.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (13).

Green arrow
(14) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing one or more green arrow indications only or in combination with a circular red or circular amber indication and facing the indication may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (14).

141 (5) that's referenced by the flashing green section is the requirement that you yield to drivers going the other way. So for the green arrow section there don't appear to be any requirements that it be protected, and the pedestrian crossing section is similar (only applies to left arrows).

Though you're right that drivers might expect it to be a protected right turn. Maybe a separate left turn signal that's always red, with a white bar for buses, would do better.

[Bob_McBob]

CTV seems to have been trolling for content on Reddit/WRC and picked up the issue of the pedestrian crossings at King and Victoria.

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/just-not-sa...-1.4504479

[Bob_McBob]

In an amazing turn of events, all the usual dickheads on CTV's Facebook page have suddenly become ardent supporters of pedestrian infrastructure and are demanding the train yield to pedestrians here because they think they would have to do it in a car.

[danbrotherston]

[KevinL]

There are far less intrusive ways to keep an eye on the Traynor fence. If the people involved need to be air-conditioned, let them ride a train back and forth to Block Line and report via radio if there's an infraction.

And build the damn crossing already, of course.

[clasher]

[Bob_McBob]

It was a photo Ian (Canard) took showing security vehicles driving up the path at Traynor. It looked remarkably like photos from the Mexican border. Not sure why he deleted it.

[ijmorlan]

There are many that can ignore stop signs (like yourself) …

This is an incorrect and, frankly, libellous characterization of my behaviour.

No need to respond to the rest if you won’t make an attempt to understand what I’m saying.

[ijmorlan]

Sorry, what I meant was that there are plenty of crossings (more than "plenty") which are not gate-controlled.

Why must there be a gate blocking the sidewalk, particularly the small gate blocking only the sidewalk on the east side (I can't think of one of those used elsewhere on the line), and particularly when people are going to be on the track side of the gate disembarking the train? That makes no sense to me.

There are similar situations at several other stops, for example University of Waterloo. People get off the train, then I guess are supposed to wait in the middle between the tracks until the gates go up, even if they are crossing the track that the train is not on and which won’t see a train until the next train comes in the other direction. Of course sometimes it’s almost there and they actually do need to wait in order to be safe, while other times it is 10 minutes away.

Ideally, there should be two totally separate crossings, one for each track. So to cross right over both tracks, the order would be gate - track - gate - platform - gate - track - gate. But that might run into real estate problems; even if we allow the gates on the inside between the tracks to be much closer to the tracks than usual, they take up some space themselves and wouldn’t leave all that much space between them for walking to the platform.

On one level of course the answer to your question is “because it’s part of a gate-controlled intersection” but I’m not a designer of the system so I’m allowed to actually think about the situation and agree that it’s weird. On the other hand I don’t have to design something that is legal to construct so I have to have some sympathy for their position.

Maybe they should have done the LRT at Northfield as “on street” and used gates only for the freight line.