ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[panamaniac]

I've been puzzling for some time over the pictures I've seen of the anchor walls at the various stations. Do they all have a clear "window" in them? Is this done for security reasons? It's not very attractive, to my eye.

[jeremyroman]

Hmmm, the image is not visible, at least not to me.

Fixed, hopefully?

[Canard]

The glass window in lower portions of the Anchor walls is horrible, I agree - I hate it.

[panamaniac]

The glass window in lower portions of the Anchor walls is horrible, I agree - I hate it.

Do you know, is it for security reasons?  I can't think of any other explanation.  I wonder whether they (perhaps the walls in general) won't get filthy dirty every winter?

[Pheidippides]

I've been puzzling for some time over the pictures I've seen of the anchor walls at the various stations.  Do they all have a clear "window" in them?  Is this done for security reasons?  It's not very attractive, to my eye.

Yes it is for safety. It is part of the overall Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) of the Ion stations. It is supposed to reduce places where someone can hide.

For example, from the Schedule 15-2 (LRT Stops and Stop Equipment):
"Avoid square columns or columns wider than 400mm to minimize potential hiding places."

[panamaniac]

Thanks, I figured that had to be the explanation.

[Canard]

But the remaining sides on either side of the glass are greater than 400 mm.

[kps]

Bottom line, though: people on foot are legally allowed down King, and can safely do it? Even if they have to use the street?

The possible source of confusion: the street is not open to motor vehicles.

[timc]

In the stop design document, on page 3, it looks like there could be seating in front of the glass. But then none of the station designs include seating there. If there was seating, it might be nice to have a window so you aren't sitting in a shadow when the sun is on the other side.

http://rapidtransit.regionofwaterloo.ca/...mittee.pdf

[MidTowner]

kps: "The possible source of confusion: the street is not open to motor vehicles."

My source of confusion is that I haven't seen it with my own eyes. But I'm hearing that it's both safe and legal to use, so thanks to those who provided that info.

[Canard]

But the window is very low - at the bottom. So only your feet would get some light.

[Canard]

It's safe and legal as per the project team and Lens' photos quite clearly show the parade of orange cones, making a safe passage through the abyss.

[MidTowner]

What do you mean by "safe paste through the abyss"?

The photo shows the cones, but I don't think it's obvious from the photo that the intent is a foot path. I don't know what you might be referring to when you say "as per the project team."

ijmorlan answered, in post #8768, with his own observations. That was very helpful.

[danbrotherston]

Walking through it this morning, it is clearly intended as a path (the cones even have rope strung between them) and is relatively convenient to use, except right at the end, where there's a fence with no opening so good luck if you're in some way unable to hop a curb.

[KevinL]

Uh oh.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/rideIONrt">@rideIONrt</a> Looks like drainage not going smoothly at Charles/Gaukel since paving was done. Can someone take a look? <a href="https://t.co/g1IghXN21X">pic.twitter.com/g1IghXN21X</a></p>&mdash; Kevin Loughlin ? (@KevinLMaps) <a href="https://twitter.com/KevinLMaps/status/880470420327149569">June 29, 2017</a></blockquote>