ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[bpoland]

The region is proposing a new pedestrian crossover at Willis Way station. Seems like they should have figured this out when building Ion but hopefully they can get it added soon. You can register your support and get more details here: https://forms.regionofwaterloo.ca/Transp...evel-2-PXO

[bgb_ca]

The region is proposing a new pedestrian crossover at Willis Way station.  Seems like they should have figured this out when building Ion but hopefully they can get it added soon.  You can register your support and get more details here: https://forms.regionofwaterloo.ca/Transp...evel-2-PXO

Good. It is needed there. Most people getting off ION cross there anyway.

[ijmorlan]

The region is proposing a new pedestrian crossover at Willis Way station.  Seems like they should have figured this out when building Ion but hopefully they can get it added soon.  You can register your support and get more details here: https://forms.regionofwaterloo.ca/Transp...evel-2-PXO

Good. It is needed there. Most people getting off ION cross there anyway.

I just submitted a “Support” response. The form isn’t very good however — takes forever to come up, then doesn’t have space for general comments, then the “thank you” page says “Change the text for this message”. Not a very impressive effort.

My main comment would be that the crossing should be in line with the existing crossing over the LRT tracks, so people who just want to cross the street and LRT can do so more conveniently.

Secondary comment: what sort of investigation will take place to understand how such an obviously needed crossing was omitted from the LRT plans? One doesn’t need to be a traffic engineer to see upon a cursory inspection of the plans that it is needed.

[danbrotherston]

Good. It is needed there. Most people getting off ION cross there anyway.

I just submitted a “Support” response. The form isn’t very good however — takes forever to come up, then doesn’t have space for general comments, then the “thank you” page says “Change the text for this message”. Not a very impressive effort.

My main comment would be that the crossing should be in line with the existing crossing over the LRT tracks, so people who just want to cross the street and LRT can do so more conveniently.

Secondary comment: what sort of investigation will take place to understand how such an obviously needed crossing was omitted from the LRT plans? One doesn’t need to be a traffic engineer to see upon a cursory inspection of the plans that it is needed.

Indeed, or both places...seem like they're begrudingly correcting a mistake they have opposed for a while.

[ijmorlan]

Indeed, or both places...seem like they're begrudingly correcting a mistake they have opposed for a while.

Not sure if “both places” refers to the Traynor crossing and here, or to putting crossings both where proposed and in line with the LRT track crossing.

If the former, then very much agreed. If the latter, crossings are not needed in both places — the proposed location is under 10m over from the existing crossing and I think even those of us who support much-improved pedestrian mobility can agree that 2 crossings 10m apart is overkill.

Where they should also put a crossing is on the south side of Father David Bauer, and extend the existing pedestrian island on the north side towards the south to discourage the illegal left turn from Father David Bauer onto Caroline.

[danbrotherston]

Indeed, or both places...seem like they're begrudingly correcting a mistake they have opposed for a while.

Not sure if “both places” refers to the Traynor crossing and here, or to putting crossings both where proposed and in line with the LRT track crossing.

If the former, then very much agreed. If the latter, crossings are not needed in both places — the proposed location is under 10m over from the existing crossing and I think even those of us who support much-improved pedestrian mobility can agree that 2 crossings 10m apart is overkill.

Where they should also put a crossing is on the south side of Father David Bauer, and extend the existing pedestrian island on the north side towards the south to discourage the illegal left turn from Father David Bauer onto Caroline.

No, I meant the latter.

First of all, it isn't 10m, it's 30-50 depending on which side of the street you're on. I'm not suggesting two ped crossings within 30 meters of each other obviously, one crossing that is 30m wide would be just fine, as long as it can be actuated from both the platform and from the corner of Willis way.

There's no reason to make pedestrians walk an extra 100 meters out of their way to activate a crossing if they're going onto FDB just to activate a crossing, and it costs nothing but a length of wire.

But honestly, I fully expect they will not directly access the platform, then the engineers will be shocked, SHOCKED I say when peds CONTINUE to ignore their idiotic infra.

Extending the island is a good idea though...I have very cynical opinions about why it wasn't done in the first place.

[ijmorlan]

Not sure if “both places” refers to the Traynor crossing and here, or to putting crossings both where proposed and in line with the LRT track crossing.

If the former, then very much agreed. If the latter, crossings are not needed in both places — the proposed location is under 10m over from the existing crossing and I think even those of us who support much-improved pedestrian mobility can agree that 2 crossings 10m apart is overkill.

Where they should also put a crossing is on the south side of Father David Bauer, and extend the existing pedestrian island on the north side towards the south to discourage the illegal left turn from Father David Bauer onto Caroline.

No, I meant the latter.

First of all, it isn't 10m, it's 30-50 depending on which side of the street you're on. I'm not suggesting two ped crossings within 30 meters of each other obviously, one crossing that is 30m wide would be just fine, as long as it can be actuated from both the platform and from the corner of Willis way.

There's no reason to make pedestrians walk an extra 100 meters out of their way to activate a crossing if they're going onto FDB just to activate a crossing, and it costs nothing but a length of wire.

But honestly, I fully expect they will not directly access the platform, then the engineers will be shocked, SHOCKED I say when peds CONTINUE to ignore their idiotic infra.

Extending the island is a good idea though...I have very cynical opinions about why it wasn't done in the first place.

I think there might be some confusion. Here is the image from the comment site showing where the proposed crossover is to go:

   

As you can see, the location is about 10m south of the existing crossing from the west side to the LRT platform (measured in Google Maps). The location should be moved north so it is straight in line with the existing crossing.

A second new crossing, by contrast, is a good idea, specifically crossing just south of Father David Bauer so that the intersection of FDB with Caroline would have pedestrian crossings on all 3 streets.

[danbrotherston]

No, I meant the latter.

First of all, it isn't 10m, it's 30-50 depending on which side of the street you're on. I'm not suggesting two ped crossings within 30 meters of each other obviously, one crossing that is 30m wide would be just fine, as long as it can be actuated from both the platform and from the corner of Willis way.

There's no reason to make pedestrians walk an extra 100 meters out of their way to activate a crossing if they're going onto FDB just to activate a crossing, and it costs nothing but a length of wire.

But honestly, I fully expect they will not directly access the platform, then the engineers will be shocked, SHOCKED I say when peds CONTINUE to ignore their idiotic infra.

Extending the island is a good idea though...I have very cynical opinions about why it wasn't done in the first place.

I think there might be some confusion. Here is the image from the comment site showing where the proposed crossover is to go:



As you can see, the location is about 10m south of the existing crossing from the west side to the LRT platform (measured in Google Maps). The location should be moved north so it is straight in line with the existing crossing.

A second new crossing, by contrast, is a good idea, specifically crossing just south of Father David Bauer so that the intersection of FDB with Caroline would have pedestrian crossings on all 3 streets.

Ahh, sorry, yes, I am misunderstanding, I never saw that picture.

If I had to speculate, staff are doing that to avoid having a straight crossing across the LRT tracks, LRV operators would not know if somoene is running for the platform, or running to cross the tracks...

I'm not certain I agree with their strategy, but that's my guess.

[catarctica]

Thanks for bringing it up. I voted for support. I always jaywalk there since I normally came out from Valumart and it’s much closer. Also Willis Way station really bugs me because it’s in such a prime location and is literally surrounded by parking lots.

[danbrotherston]

Thanks for bringing it up. I voted for support. I always jaywalk there since I normally came out from Valumart and it’s much closer. Also Willis Way station really bugs me because it’s in such a prime location and is literally surrounded by parking lots.

Yeah, you have NO idea how bad this actually is!

Not only is it surrounded by parking lots, but the station (one of the busiest on the network) doesn't even have an enclosed waiting area (you know, to protect passengers from our occasionally biting weather) because there wasn't enough room...because they'd have had to shrink the parking lots.

A lot of things make me very angry about our LRT. Willis Way Station has several of them especially when I am waiting there in the cold. At least it looks like they might correct one...

[plam]

Not only is it surrounded by parking lots, but the station (one of the busiest on the network) doesn't even have an enclosed waiting area (you know, to protect passengers from our occasionally biting weather) because there wasn't enough room...because they'd have had to shrink the parking lots.

A lot of things make me very angry about our LRT. Willis Way Station has several of them especially when I am waiting there in the cold. At least it looks like they might correct one...

Yeah I tweeted about that the other day.

https://twitter.com/va2lam/status/1386178856432717828

At least it's possible to put buildings onto parking lots.

[danbrotherston]

Not only is it surrounded by parking lots, but the station (one of the busiest on the network) doesn't even have an enclosed waiting area (you know, to protect passengers from our occasionally biting weather) because there wasn't enough room...because they'd have had to shrink the parking lots.

A lot of things make me very angry about our LRT. Willis Way Station has several of them especially when I am waiting there in the cold. At least it looks like they might correct one...

Yeah I tweeted about that the other day.

https://twitter.com/va2lam/status/1386178856432717828

At least it's possible to put buildings onto parking lots.

Yeah, redeveloping the parking lots is definitely a possibility. Moving the track to widen the platform, sadly is a considerably bigger challenge. Unbelievably short sighted.

[tomh009]

Not only is it surrounded by parking lots, but the station (one of the busiest on the network) doesn't even have an enclosed waiting area (you know, to protect passengers from our occasionally biting weather) because there wasn't enough room...because they'd have had to shrink the parking lots.

I will assume that the region really doesn't like doing expropriation ...

[danbrotherston]

Not only is it surrounded by parking lots, but the station (one of the busiest on the network) doesn't even have an enclosed waiting area (you know, to protect passengers from our occasionally biting weather) because there wasn't enough room...because they'd have had to shrink the parking lots.

I will assume that the region really doesn't like doing expropriation ...

First of all, they did thousands of expropriations for the LRT, so whether they like doing them or not, they did them for this project.

Second of all, the lot is owned by the City of Waterloo, not only an organization that the Region already had to expropriate property from, and also one which would absolutely work in good faith with the Region towards a good solution, but also is absolutely strongly invested in a good solution.

If this were a stand alone project next to an unco-operative private property owner, I'd buy, "it was easier and faster not to fight with the property owner and build a substandard infra"...I'd still not agree with that decision, but in this case, it absolutely does not apply.

[tomh009]

I will assume that the region really doesn't like doing expropriation ...

First of all, they did thousands of expropriations for the LRT, so whether they like doing them or not, they did them for this project.

Second of all, the lot is owned by the City of Waterloo, not only an organization that the Region already had to expropriate property from, and also one which would absolutely work in good faith with the Region towards a good solution, but also is absolutely strongly invested in a good solution.

If this were a stand alone project next to an unco-operative private property owner, I'd buy, "it was easier and faster not to fight with the property owner and build a substandard infra"...I'd still not agree with that decision, but in this case, it absolutely does not apply.

OK, that's a very good point.