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 - zanate - 08-24-2015 (08-24-2015, 02:47 PM)GtwoK Wrote: Had no idea that was standard now, I thought all lane widths were 3.5m, and that 3.35 was the exception rather than the rule. I think they're both within the standard. 3.35m is on the lower end, but with reconstruction I see the region is going there routinely as a means to control traffic speeds, and to provide room for bike lanes or trails. 3.35m is 11 feet. While there has been some recent study data indicating 10-10.5 foot lanes may be safer from a crash rate and severity standpoint, I've heard that 11 is the minimum for city streets that the region is willing to consider right now, and it's a far sight better than 12+ feet. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 08-24-2015 And it's still wider than almost all European streets, even modern ones! RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Markster - 08-24-2015 (08-24-2015, 12:29 PM)tomh009 Wrote: And it's still wider than almost all European streets, even modern ones!Just this morning, I was idly looking at a road I was on, thinking how in any number of foreign countries, they would paint a dotted line down the middle of each direction's lane and call it a 4-lane road. And the right lane would be full of parking. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - plam - 08-24-2015 (08-24-2015, 05:53 PM)Markster Wrote:(08-24-2015, 12:29 PM)tomh009 Wrote: And it's still wider than almost all European streets, even modern ones!Just this morning, I was idly looking at a road I was on, thinking how in any number of foreign countries, they would paint a dotted line down the middle of each direction's lane and call it a 4-lane road. And the right lane would be full of parking. That's called King Street in Uptown Waterloo, right? RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 08-24-2015 And just this morning, I was looking skyward, wishing instead of ground-borne disruptive LRT we'd gotten beautiful elevated concrete guideways for Siemens VAL/CityVAL, Bombardier ART/ICTS, INNOVIA 300 Monorail or APM, or... We can all dream, I guess. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 08-24-2015 (08-24-2015, 06:49 PM)Canard Wrote: And just this morning, I was looking skyward, wishing instead of ground-borne disruptive LRT we'd gotten beautiful elevated concrete guideways for Siemens VAL/CityVAL, Bombardier ART/ICTS, INNOVIA 300 Monorail or APM, or... I’m a bit confused what these offer over LRT (other than cool civil engineering works). CityVAL: http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/en/urban-mobility/rail-solutions/automated-people-mover/cityval-airval/pages/cityval-airval.aspx Looks like an LRT but supported by rubber tires and guided by a centre rail. Are the platform edge doors mandatory? If so, very expensive. In any event, looks expensive. Can the cars be replaced later by cars from another manufacturer? ICTS: Must be grade-separated, no exceptions. That makes it enormously expensive. Also, have they fixed the problems with ice in winter? Note: operation in Vancouver doesn’t prove anything on this front. I think Wikipedia’s list of Monorail systems is instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monorail_systems Sort by system length, and note that if ION Phase 1 were a monorail, it would be the 6th longest in the world. If Phase 2 were built also, it would be the 2nd longest. Every stop would have to be elevated, with stairs and elevators, no exceptions: monorail cannot travel at grade, even where doing so is convenient. So you’re essentially proposing that we should have among the world’s largest monorail systems. LRT, by contrast, can be at grade, below grade, elevated, run in mixed traffic, run in reserved lanes, run fully isolated, with or without freight sharing the tracks. Essentially, LRT can handle any design situation, and these different situations can occur within the context of a single line — a car can start its journey in mixed traffic, run fully isolated for a while, travel elevated through a congested area, and return to reserved lanes. Furthermore, there are several manufacturers that build compatible vehicles, track components, and power supply. I agree that monorails are cool (especially the switch units), but I think it’s pretty clear why way more LRT gets built. I don’t think ICTS has any application other than extending an existing ICTS installation. Wikipedia’s list of LRT systems is also instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tram_and_light_rail_transit_systems Even in pitiful North America, there are already over a dozen systems longer than our system after Phase 2 is built. And it’s just comical how many European systems are larger. Finally, I wouldn’t worry about disruption. Roads meet other roads, and have to stop at stoplights. I’d rather stop briefly while a tram with dozens of people goes by than wait for those same people to go by in cars or even buses. And if in the future the disruption is found to be too great, strategically chosen segments of the route can always be elevated. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - BuildingScout - 08-24-2015 Monorails are elevated, which tends to create an awful shadow below, implies having to climb stairs to reach them and are for the most part unproven technology (Siemens gave up on theirs and sold the technology to China IRC), but they are "the way of the future" , because some ignorant science fiction writer decided that in the future we would all wear skin tight uniforms and travel in monorails. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 08-25-2015 (08-24-2015, 11:57 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: Monorails are elevated, which tends to create an awful shadow below, implies having to climb stairs to reach them and are for the most part unproven technology (Siemens gave up on theirs and sold the technology to China IRC), but they are "the way of the future" , because some ignorant science fiction writer decided that in the future we would all wear skin tight uniforms and travel in monorails. I have to admit I’m not that worried about the shadow from a monorail — the beam isn’t typically that large. Depending on the location, the shadow from a station may be more of a concern. Overall, however, I think the whole “shading the street” issue for elevated rail of any kind is oversold: consider Chicago’s downtown. Sure, some parts of some streets are somewhat closed in, but what for? High quality transit! And even in Chicago, which has a lot of elevated track in a relatively small area, only a few roads are affected at all. I think the requirement for every station, without exception, to be a full-scale subway-style installation is the bigger problem. I also wouldn’t characterize them as unproven: they are proven to work, and many of them run extremely reliably. What is not proven is that they are cost-effective. Having said that, I’ve been disappointed to find out how much of a toy some installations are. The Seattle monorail, for example, is something everybody thinks of when they think of Seattle, similar to the CN Tower or the Sydney Opera House. But it turns out that it has just two stations about a mile apart. It has two tracks, two vehicles, and no switches. So topologically it is the same as the Pearson Airport LINK train, minus the middle stop. Except for one small detail: the two tracks form a gauntlet at one end of the line because of the station design. Now you might assume that this is no problem, because obviously if one vehicle is at or near one station, the other will be at or near the other. Wrong! They had a collision once. Clearly they never heard of signal interlocking and train stop devices. But in a sense more strangely, they never heard of bus bunching either, when they’re running the simplest imaginable service. So, all in all an amateur, two-bit operation. On a related note, Disney has a substantial monorail system. They once had a fatal crash. Reading the details about the NTSB report made me angry because the underlying cause proved that it was an absolutely avoidable crash in several possible ways. One possibility is monorail-related: the train had to back on to the service track. Why? I can’t help but feel that it’s because monorail switches are fantastically expensive, so they skimped on the track layout. At the ION MSF, I believe trains will be able to enter and leave service without backing up. Getting back to ION, I was at the Seagram Drive crossing yesterday morning. Looks like the first track crossing is done and hooked up to the existing tracks. The space for the second track is excavated across the road and looks packed down, so I’d say they are fairly close to being able to start laying the ballast and ties. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 08-25-2015 Glad to see all the hate toward anything except LRT is so alive and well. I'll quietly go back to just taking pictures and my attitude of generally just being happy we're getting something. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - MidTowner - 08-25-2015 You should start a thread about monorail to have discussions there. I've heard some pretty neat arguments in favour of monorail and other less-common technologies, and I spent some time in Wuppertal and found their truly unique system fantastic. But this thread is Ion, which is an LRT system, for better or worse. I'm sure there would be more than a few people interested in talking about monorail (or any other technology) in its own thread. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 08-25-2015 No, it’s futile – UrbanToronto had a Monorail thread, and it’s the reason I stopped posting there. I got blasted off the face of the planet for suggesting that there actually are alternative transportation technologies beyond what already exists in the Centre of the Universe. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - BuildingScout - 08-25-2015 Track realignment. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 08-25-2015 (08-25-2015, 12:34 PM)Canard Wrote: Glad to see all the hate toward anything except LRT is so alive and well. I'll quietly go back to just taking pictures and my attitude of generally just being happy we're getting something. No hate here — I think monorails are interesting, and hope I get a chance to visit some one day. But I think I understand why LRT is constructed more often, and I don’t think it has anything to do with prejudice. Also, since I want to see public transit expand, I prefer to see LRT being built, because it is easier to extend in a variety of scenarios, as I mentioned before. I’d rather see a small LRT built that then offers the hope of extension than a monorail system that is less likely to be extended. I’m not just happy that we’re getting something — I’m extremely pleased we’re getting what I consider to be the ideal system for our situation, and I look forward to funding and more proposals for extension in the coming years. I actually would be interested in what you think ICTS, for example, has over LRT. It doesn’t have to be a universal — maybe it’s better in some situations rather than all. For ICTS I don’t see it at all. For monorail I will actually go so far as to say that I see a scenario: the entire proposed system needs to be elevated (for whatever reason), or at least grade-separated, and the same applies to any reasonable extensions. Note however that in my view this pretty well rules out any public transit application, because there will always be potential extensions in the city that don’t need to be elevated. I should add that I very much appreciate your photos, and those of the other forum members who post photos. I can’t get out to the various work sites nearly as much as I would like so I like seeing the various updates. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 08-25-2015 I guess the things that I think ICTS/Monorail/VAL/etc. has over Light Rail is that they [typically] are elevated - I see elevated transportation technologies as vastly superior to those that are ground-based and have to interact with people. Elevating a system so it is completely separated eliminates all of the deaths and accidents that are caused each year by having pedestrian/cycle/automobile interaction with semi-high speed light rail trains; it frees up land (look under Vancouver's Skytrain guideways - parks everywhere), but I guess deep down, as a transit enthusiast... it just feels right to me. I understand that the Region wanted to do the whole step-on/step-off thing "Oh look, a cafe, let's jump off the train on our bicycle and the platform is at the same height" but the result is that we will have accidents - people will get hit, there is massive disruption during construction, and we have removed a huge swath of land where the right of way is (lane capacity, properties, etc). Don't get me wrong - I understand all of the overall system benefits - I'm just saying that other transportation technologies, however "inappropriate" they might have felt to be implemented here, would have had a little less hurt, for the same gain. They do exist for a reason. Look at Rennes. City with less than half the population of the Region, and they're building their 2nd automated Metro line (Ligne A is VAL 208, Ligne B is the Cityval prototype). Crazyness. I agree that ICTS/Monorail/VAL would have probably seemed out of place here, met with much opposition, and I never truly expected anyone to take me seriously. Besides, it gives me a reason and drive to travel. Why else would I go all the way to Morgantown or Odaiba or Lille? (I humbly appreciate your comments regarding the photos; I have fun taking them, and enjoy sharing the progress of the system.) RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 08-25-2015 Ontario Street has reopened! (Apologies for the blurry shot.) |