ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

As in walking across the tracks, but was then met with a train maybe 10 feet away honking the horn. That should not be permitted to occur.

This article explains how messed up that crossing is. You can have a white OK-to-walk signal and yet the train goes through regardless. I'm sure it would have stopped but it's still a ridiculous intersection. The fact that the beg button can only be pushed by walking across makes it even worse. If it were a child trying to cross the street, who didn't know they had to expect the train, that could result in an accident. There is - at most - 4 feet of room to stand on and you end up sandwiched between a train and fast moving traffic standing there. It wouldn't be as bad if they had a short pole with the beg button on it before the tracks, but the way it is now is just inviting an accident to occur, either from the train itself or an inattentive driver.

But you don't have a walk signal, the walk signal is for the road, that's why the beg button isn't on the near side of the crossing. This is the same as every channelized turn in the city.

And like I said, the risk is very low because the train is going slowly. This is why there are towns in Europe with trams through the middle of pedestrian areas, which don't see frequent collisions because the tram is going slowly.

I agree there are problems with the design of this crossing, but I don't believe safety is one of those problems.

[timc]

From what I recall, the button at that corner isn't a beg button, but an audio button. And I guess that would make it worse for someone who needs that accommodation, because they have to cross the tracks to access it.

[danbrotherston]

From what I recall, the button at that corner isn't a beg button, but an audio button. And I guess that would make it worse for someone who needs that accommodation, because they have to cross the tracks to access it.

Yes, it isn't actually a pedestrian actuated signal, but again, those who need accomodation have the same problem at all channelized turns. And again, it is difficult to express with words how much more I trust LRV operators than I trust drivers.

[danbrotherston]

I would almost go so far as to say people are MORE afraid of this corner because they are more fearful of trains (being new) than they are of vastly more dangerous corners in the rest of the city where the danger comes from distracted aggressive drivers, a danger we live with every day everywhere, but which we have grown accustomed to.

I am surprised to see transit enthusiasts make such a big deal of this corner, while I don't disagree there are improvements that could be made, I really don't think it's even in the top 50 problems on our LRT route.

[timc]

It might just be a bikeshed issue.

[ac3r]

But you don't have a walk signal, the walk signal is for the road, that's why the beg button isn't on the near side of the crossing. This is the same as every channelized turn in the city.

And like I said, the risk is very low because the train is going slowly. This is why there are towns in Europe with trams through the middle of pedestrian areas, which don't see frequent collisions because the tram is going slowly.

I agree there are problems with the design of this crossing, but I don't believe safety is one of those problems.

It's still a stupid design man. Doesn't matter what is or is not intended. Most people push the button to activate the signal so they can warn drivers...since they usually check to see if the pedestrian signal is activated. If you're a deaf, visually impaired, a child, someone pushing a stroller, using a walker to cross the street or simply a pedestrian, you should feel and be safe when crossing the street without the risk of getting hit by a train. Doesn't matter how slow it goes, it's still a train.

[danbrotherston]

But you don't have a walk signal, the walk signal is for the road, that's why the beg button isn't on the near side of the crossing. This is the same as every channelized turn in the city.

And like I said, the risk is very low because the train is going slowly. This is why there are towns in Europe with trams through the middle of pedestrian areas, which don't see frequent collisions because the tram is going slowly.

I agree there are problems with the design of this crossing, but I don't believe safety is one of those problems.

It's still a stupid design man. Doesn't matter what is or is not intended. Most people push the button to activate the signal so they can warn drivers...since they usually check to see if the pedestrian signal is activated. If you're a deaf, visually impaired, a child, someone pushing a stroller, using a walker to cross the street or simply a pedestrian, you should feel and be safe when crossing the street without the risk of getting hit by a train. Doesn't matter how slow it goes, it's still a train.

Why does it being "still a train" mean anything. It's still a large motor vehicle, sure...like I said, anyone who is more afraid of our LRVs which operate on a fixed guideway by careful conscientious operators than a much more powerful pickup operated by random and erratic people is not rationally evaluating risk. 

Also, it isn't a train, but that's just a pedantic issue, but in other ways, it isn't, it has performance characteristics at those speeds more similar to large vehicle than a train.

As for your highlighting of "be"...maybe highlight "feel" instead, that's where I agree, it should be better in that regard. I am arguing it feels unsafe, but actually is fairly safe...a rarity on our roads.

And you misunderstand the situation, on channelized turns in our region the signal button is ALSO on the post on the island, meaning one must cross the uncontrolled crosswalk to get to the island to push the button. It's exactly the same situation as here.

[Bob_McBob]

And you misunderstand the situation, on channelized turns in our region the signal button is ALSO on the post on the island, meaning one must cross the uncontrolled crosswalk to get to the island to push the button. It's exactly the same situation as here.

It's the same situation except that pedestrians have the right of way at every other slip lane in the region. That combined with the fact the traffic (train) is coming from behind as you cross is what makes the intersection unusual and potentially dangerous. Pedestrians see a walk signal from across Victoria and expect traffic to yield to them when crossing the tracks, and don't hear a quiet train creeping up behind them. The slow speed has prevented any incidents, but I don't think we can simply discount the number of close calls people are reporting, because it doesn't take a lot for a train to seriously injure or kill a pedestrian. It's not the same as other pedestrian-LRT interactions because of the right of way expectation and orientation of the crossing with respect to the train travel.

[ac3r]

Why does it being "still a train" mean anything. It's still a large motor vehicle, sure...like I said, anyone who is more afraid of our LRVs which operate on a fixed guideway by careful conscientious operators than a much more powerful pickup operated by random and erratic people is not rationally evaluating risk. 

Also, it isn't a train, but that's just a pedantic issue, but in other ways, it isn't, it has performance characteristics at those speeds more similar to large vehicle than a train.

As for your highlighting of "be"...maybe highlight "feel" instead, that's where I agree, it should be better in that regard. I am arguing it feels unsafe, but actually is fairly safe...a rarity on our roads.

And you misunderstand the situation, on channelized turns in our region the signal button is ALSO on the post on the island, meaning one must cross the uncontrolled crosswalk to get to the island to push the button. It's exactly the same situation as here.

Omfg...WRC, tell me I'm not the only one finding this hilarious? The most cynical and evangelical, pro-bike, anti-car user on the forum is now saying pedestrians should just suck up poor infrastructure design and that it's pedantic to worry about train tracks in the middle of a pedestrian crossing? Lmao...are you just trolling? It's a train, not "another motor vehicle"...get real. At basically every other intersection, you push that button and expect traffic (all motor vehicles, yeah?) to yield to the pedestrian. I don't care whether or not some obscure rule says otherwise, that's what people expect. You push the beg button, you expect a walk signal and to walk across the street before you are expected to yield to a car or a damn entire train. If you're going to force pedestrians to cross that section of tracks to press a button, then make it safe for them. They built a crossing and added gates near Traynor Ave, after all.

This is a horrifically designed intersection and if you can't see that, shut up already, you have nothing but bad takes on infrastructure. I have a masters degree in architecture/planning and this is seriously one of the weirdest things I've ever seen and it's obviously problematic. The solution to this is so basic it should have been included in the initial design. IDK how this got approved to be honest. I am sure if a bicyclist gets run over here at some point you'll be crying about it for days.

[danbrotherston]

And you misunderstand the situation, on channelized turns in our region the signal button is ALSO on the post on the island, meaning one must cross the uncontrolled crosswalk to get to the island to push the button. It's exactly the same situation as here.

It's the same situation except that pedestrians have the right of way at every other slip lane in the region. That combined with the fact the traffic (train) is coming from behind as you cross is what makes the intersection unusual and potentially dangerous. Pedestrians see a walk signal from across Victoria and expect traffic to yield to them when crossing the tracks, and don't hear a quiet train creeping up behind them. The slow speed has prevented any incidents, but I don't think we can simply discount the number of close calls people are reporting, because it doesn't take a lot for a train to seriously injure or kill a pedestrian. It's not the same as other pedestrian-LRT interactions because of the right of way expectation and orientation of the crossing with respect to the train travel.

What potential danger? That an LRV operator would be distracted on a phone while making a right turn and not see a pedestrian? I don't really think that's a significant danger. The point is LRV operators are attentive, they are looking for pedestrians, and have no view problems and moving extremely slowly.

People are reporting close calls because people think being near the train is a "close call". People are afraid of the train because it's new and scary, but if a driver was just near them, they'd not call it a "close call".

I do believe people feel uncomfortable at this crossing and that there are things that could improve (the island should be bigger), but people are making this out to be a death trap, and I strongly disagree.

[danbrotherston]

Why does it being "still a train" mean anything. It's still a large motor vehicle, sure...like I said, anyone who is more afraid of our LRVs which operate on a fixed guideway by careful conscientious operators than a much more powerful pickup operated by random and erratic people is not rationally evaluating risk. 

Also, it isn't a train, but that's just a pedantic issue, but in other ways, it isn't, it has performance characteristics at those speeds more similar to large vehicle than a train.

As for your highlighting of "be"...maybe highlight "feel" instead, that's where I agree, it should be better in that regard. I am arguing it feels unsafe, but actually is fairly safe...a rarity on our roads.

And you misunderstand the situation, on channelized turns in our region the signal button is ALSO on the post on the island, meaning one must cross the uncontrolled crosswalk to get to the island to push the button. It's exactly the same situation as here.

Omfg...WRC, tell me I'm not the only one finding this hilarious? The most cynical and evangelical, pro-bike, anti-car user on the forum is now saying pedestrians should just suck up poor infrastructure design and that it's pedantic to worry about train tracks in the middle of a pedestrian crossing? Lmao...are you just trolling? It's a train, not "another motor vehicle"...get real. At basically every other intersection, you push that button and expect traffic (all motor vehicles, yeah?) to yield to the pedestrian. I don't care whether or not some obscure rule says otherwise, that's what people expect. You push the beg button, you expect a walk signal and to walk across the street before you are expected to yield to a car or a damn entire train. If you're going to force pedestrians to cross that section of tracks to press a button, then make it safe for them. They built a crossing and added gates near Traynor Ave, after all.

This is a horrifically designed intersection and if you can't see that, shut up already, you have nothing but bad takes on infrastructure. I have a masters degree in architecture/planning and this is seriously one of the weirdest things I've ever seen and it's obviously problematic. The solution to this is so basic it should have been included in the initial design. IDK how this got approved to be honest. I am sure if a bicyclist gets run over here at some point you'll be crying about it for days.

I'm done engaging with you at this point.

[ac3r]

Great! You'll still never know what you're talking about.

[danbrotherston]

Great! You'll still never know what you're talking about.

This is an uncalled for personal attack at this point...

[jeffster]

Why does it being "still a train" mean anything. It's still a large motor vehicle, sure...like I said, anyone who is more afraid of our LRVs which operate on a fixed guideway by careful conscientious operators than a much more powerful pickup operated by random and erratic people is not rationally evaluating risk. 

Also, it isn't a train, but that's just a pedantic issue, but in other ways, it isn't, it has performance characteristics at those speeds more similar to large vehicle than a train.

As for your highlighting of "be"...maybe highlight "feel" instead, that's where I agree, it should be better in that regard. I am arguing it feels unsafe, but actually is fairly safe...a rarity on our roads.

And you misunderstand the situation, on channelized turns in our region the signal button is ALSO on the post on the island, meaning one must cross the uncontrolled crosswalk to get to the island to push the button. It's exactly the same situation as here.

It's a train. It's on a rail. That's what makes it a train. At 48,200 kg -- a fully loaded (with salt) double axel snow dump truck weighs about half of that.

Back to that intersection. Don't underestimate the power of stupid or careless people, or those that are in a rush. And don't give LRT drivers absolute credit in their ability to avoid accidents absolutely. That intersection is an accident waiting to happen. It's not a matter of if, but when. Just how severe the injuries, I have no idea. I suppose it depends on whether or not the train operator notices it or not.

[danbrotherston]

Why does it being "still a train" mean anything. It's still a large motor vehicle, sure...like I said, anyone who is more afraid of our LRVs which operate on a fixed guideway by careful conscientious operators than a much more powerful pickup operated by random and erratic people is not rationally evaluating risk. 

Also, it isn't a train, but that's just a pedantic issue, but in other ways, it isn't, it has performance characteristics at those speeds more similar to large vehicle than a train.

As for your highlighting of "be"...maybe highlight "feel" instead, that's where I agree, it should be better in that regard. I am arguing it feels unsafe, but actually is fairly safe...a rarity on our roads.

And you misunderstand the situation, on channelized turns in our region the signal button is ALSO on the post on the island, meaning one must cross the uncontrolled crosswalk to get to the island to push the button. It's exactly the same situation as here.

It's a train. It's on a rail. That's what makes it a train. At 48,200 kg -- a fully loaded (with salt) double axel snow dump truck weighs about half of that.

Back to that intersection. Don't underestimate the power of stupid or careless people, or those that are in a rush. And don't give LRT drivers absolute credit in their ability to avoid accidents absolutely. That intersection is an accident waiting to happen.  It's not a matter of if, but when.  Just how severe the injuries, I have no idea. I suppose it depends on whether or not the train operator notices it or not.

A double axle snow dump truck also has half the axles.

I have no doubt about people in a rush, or who aren't paying attention. While operators are not infallible, they know it is a conflict point and are watching. Let me put it this way, how many pedestrians do you think we will see hit by cars before one is hit by a train? I doubt it is less than a dozen and I wouldn't think 100 would be unreasonable (and I don't mean serious collisions, I mean any collision, because that's what we would count for the LRV).

So if the intersection is 10-100 times more dangerous because of cars, why are we having a conversation about trains? Or do others really feel that a train collision is more likely than that.