Waterloo Region Connected
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit (/showthread.php?tid=14)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - MidTowner - 01-13-2016

(01-13-2016, 11:29 AM)chutten Wrote: (since I can't see how E-bound traffic could run afoul of the train any more often than running afoul of W-bound traffic)

You're probably correct on this- but if the risk of a collision is the same, the impact of a collision is likely much worse. When a car is struck by another car, it's one thing; by a train, the outcome is likely to be much more serious.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - chutten - 01-13-2016

(01-13-2016, 11:40 AM)Canard Wrote: I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm kind of shocked that in this day an age the thinking could possibly be "Let's just see how many people die before we fix it" for the cost of an illuminated sign.

I'm sorry, I forgot. Are we talking about cars, here? Or trains?

...okay, maybe that was a bit glib. But how many people die on intersections today? Maybe the stats we should be looking at are damageDollarsAndDeaths per 1000 people moving through an intersection?

Then I would hope even Houston's numbers with the trains are better than they were without.

I agree we can almost certainly do better. And if the cost is just for one or two (or a dozen) lousy lighted signs, then damn skippy we should already be doing this.

Interestingly (at least to me), simply by building and running ION we already _are_ doing this: spending money to move more people more safely. Which is the correct direction we should be moving on this.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Markster - 01-13-2016

Well, those "as required based on collisions" ones are in places where there is nothing "out of the ordinary" about the track alignment.  It's no different than a lane of regular traffic, except that it's a vehicle on rails instead of asphalt.

For the most part, one should be able to assume that cars will be able to handle themselves just as well around a fixed-track vehicle, as they would a non-fixed vehicle doing the same thing.

As you rightfully point out, the trains are not exactly the same as a regular vehicle, because they are quite heavy.  But how heavy are they? And how does that compare to what's on the roads already?

Toronto's new streetcars weigh about 48,200 kg (source)
The LRV we'll be getting is a little larger, maybe ~65,000 kg
Meanwhile tractor trailers are allowed to be 49,500 kg (source) in Ontario.

A collision between a car and an LRV will be roughly the same, in terms of energy, as one between a car and a tractor trailer.

Charles and King streets have been home to a lot of tractor trailer traffic. Was there an epidemic of vehicular collision deaths on those streets that I was unaware of? Or, more morbidly, what vehicular deaths we have had so far between trucks and cars on those streets are clearly established to be within accepted levels of the existing social contract that we are all signed up for by having cars and trucks on our streets at all.

Looking to Toronto, where they have similar vehicles already plying their streets, they do not have anything beyond the regular level of traffic accidents. Queens Quay, where they have a unique track alignment that lends itself to LRVs sideswiping (illegally-)left-turning cars (impacting into the driver's side, no less) I have yet to hear of a fatality, despite many reported collisions.

Is it suddenly so different, here in KW, now that this particular vehicle is fixed on a track that we necessarily need to restrict traffic movements more? Even beyond the amount they're already being restricted?

Personally, I already feel safer with LRVs than I would with tractor trailers. I can trust that they won't swerve. That the driver knows they're dealing with the safety of 100 passengers in addition to their own.

Everyone is going to have a different opinion on when something it just different enough that it starts to need special consideration, but I don't think this is it.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-13-2016

Well we hope we are - we don't have that data yet.  If ion kills 10 people per year but only 6 people per year died at those same intersections before service began, that's a step backward. I really hope that won't be the case, but we just don't know yet.

I don't know how widely reported pedestrian/cyclist and automobile collisions are, so it's really hard to gauge from the media where we stand today.  You don't hear about it all that often, though, except for high-profile cases like the Block Line Roundabout/GRT one.

Minneapolis just had a bad streak of 5 accidents in 10 days.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 01-13-2016

(01-13-2016, 01:19 PM)Markster Wrote: Well, those "as required based on collisions" ones are in places where there is nothing "out of the ordinary" about the track alignment.  It's no different than a lane of regular traffic, except that it's a vehicle on rails instead of asphalt.

Indeed. I think there is a definite double standard around LRT safety. They have to be extra super safe, not just reasonably safe, in a way that is never required of anything related to ordinary road construction.

Having said that, I speculate that people have trouble really internalizing what it means to have a transit lane. I speculate that they don’t think of it as a traffic lane, so don’t properly check, explaining all those left-turn collisions that we see on YouTube. I wonder if a proper BRT would have the same problem.

(01-13-2016, 01:19 PM)Markster Wrote: Toronto's new streetcars weigh about 48,200 kg (source)
The LRV we'll be getting is a little larger, maybe ~65,000 kg
Meanwhile tractor trailers are allowed to be 49,500 kg (source) in Ontario.

I believe our vehicles will be almost identical to the Toronto streetcars. Certainly I understand that is the case with respect to overall size and length.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-13-2016

I've outlined all the technical differences many times throughout this thread between Toronto's heavily-customized FLEXITY Outlook vehicles and and Waterloo's standardized FLEXITY Freedom vehicles; I'd be happy to run through them again if anyone's interested.

I like how it's automatically the "driver's fault".* Many LRT accidents involve pedestrians and cyclists, too, who aren't paying attention, diddling on their phones or blasting their music in their headphones, unaware of anything going on in the world around them.

* - I fully realize and was simply pointing out that you singled out motorists, not cyclists and pedestrians. I'm aware that virtually all crashes involving trains are the fault of the person who gets hit. I know it's fun as a cyclist or pedestrian to always blame car drivers for everything but the fact is all 3 are the ones at fault, pedestrians and cyclists too. I can't think of any Light Rail accident in recent history, except the Muni crash, which was caused by LRV operator error (and even that one was medical related, I think). I just want people to be aware that Waterloo Region isn't somehow magically excempt from the crash curse that follows surface-rail technologies operating in roadways (LRT). If we had chosen an elevated technology, we would not be having this discussion. This is the technology we chose.)

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 01-14-2016

(01-13-2016, 10:04 PM)Canard Wrote: I've outlined all the technical differences many times throughout this thread between Toronto's heavily-customized FLEXITY Outlook vehicles and and Waterloo's standardized FLEXITY Freedom vehicles; I'd be happy to run through them again if anyone's interested.

I know there are differences involving gauge, doors on one vs. both sides, one vs. two cabs, and minimum turn radius. On top of this I assume identical floor plans will not be used and there will be smaller follow-on differences. But isn’t the overall length, width, and height very similar? It’s not clear to me what would account for a substantial difference in weight.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-14-2016

To the casual user, yes, they'll look and feel almost identical, except for the design of the nose/tail (since our trains are bi-directional). Seating arrangement is the same (but we get a bit of extra width, in the form of wider aisles).

(To a transit fan the differences are much deeper.)

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 01-14-2016

The point being that from a crash perspective, someone cheating on a left turn hanging on tracks in a car, or blowing across the rails on a bike, or not looking while crossing rails as a pedestrian, and getting hit by a TTC Streetcar vs. ION LRV will not likely experience any appreciable difference, one collision from the other.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-14-2016

Oh absolutely, but the speeds are much lower in Toronto, both for the streetcars and the traffic around them. Our system is much closer to other Light Rail systems, not other streetcar systems.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 01-14-2016

I thought that in areas where cars were nearby (most of the route), ION was to be limited to their speed limit, much as TTC streetcars follow posted signs (whether traffic always lets them get up to that speed is another matter). Indeed though, a cyclist choosing a poor point to cross the tracks between UpTown and UW, or UW and Northfield, to them it would be a much more damaging collision, given the higher speeds attained there.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Markster - 01-14-2016

(01-13-2016, 09:55 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I believe our vehicles will be almost identical to the Toronto streetcars. Certainly I understand that is the case with respect to overall size and length.

The difference in weight I had was based on an assumption that they were a bit longer than the TTC streetcar variant. I could very well have misremembered. Bombardier's website is fairly sparse on data for the exact variant we'll be getting.  If they are the same length, then they will be of comparable weight, meaning the comparison with a tractor trailer holds even better.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - chutten - 01-14-2016

(01-13-2016, 09:55 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Having said that, I speculate that people have trouble really internalizing what it means to have a transit lane. I speculate that they don’t think of it as a traffic lane, so don’t properly check, explaining all those left-turn collisions that we see on YouTube. I wonder if a proper BRT would have the same problem.

Well, how many traffic lanes with traffic coming up from behind are there to your left when you're making a left turn? None, I hope. I mean you're not making a left turn from the any lane but the leftmost, are you? (in Canada)

In the (near!) future, you might have one train lane to your left that does come up from behind you, adjacent to you, on parts of the system where the trains are in the middle of the road instead of the edges.

Drivers aren't necessarily used to shoulder-checking to the left when making a left turn, which I always presumed was the cause of those frequent left-turn collisions. (which in turn I presumed were the reasons for changing some streets along the corridor into right-in-right-out-exclusives)

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - clasher - 01-14-2016

Why not have a barrier on the left turn lane that comes down when a train approaches in that case, to at least keep the driver from turning into the train's path? Heavy rail seems to have the whole gate thing figured out and it seems to help reduce collisions.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - chutten - 01-14-2016

(01-14-2016, 01:09 PM)clasher Wrote: Why not have a barrier on the left turn lane that comes down when a train approaches in that case, to at least keep the driver from turning into the train's path? Heavy rail seems to have the whole gate thing figured out and it seems to help reduce collisions.

Because this light rail is running lengthwise through an intersection, not crossing a street.

If you put down a barrier between your car and the tracks, you have now trapped opposing left-turning traffic on the tracks. Barriers on heavy rail crossings are only on the upstream side so you don't suffer this problem.

I may have misunderstood you. Upon reading it again, you propose a barrier on the traffic lane. Like an arm that comes down over the stop line? That wouldn't have my stated problem, and would suffer only from the problems of heavy rail crossing barriers.

That being said, our light rail is going to be much more frequent and short than heavy rail, so I wonder if the economics of it don't work out or something...