(07-20-2022, 09:46 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(07-20-2022, 09:14 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Right, it’s not hard, just expensive (in particular, dealing with water).

Even building the Gotthard Base Tunnel wasn’t really hard per se, just a stupendous amount of work.


The slow travel is due to safety paranoia, not due to cost cutting. It could run faster if we would just decide to do so.

To be fair, I don’t know if it’s local safety paranoia that could be fixed by changing personnel at Grandlinq, or if it’s imposed by regulators. But I find it unbelievable that, for example, the slow speeds southbound approaching Erb St. or when running parallel to Courtland are really justified by any realistic safety concerns.

If anybody actually knows anything about the slowdowns, I’m all ears — but I will be asking probing questions about the information and won’t quietly accept any bafflegab.


You do know where Laurel Creek runs through Uptown? You might actually be able to convince me that a grade separation at Agnes St. is not totally unrealistic (my biggest concern would , but threading a rail tunnel around the creek definitely moves it into the expensive megaproject category (relative to the size of our city).

I think the thing that this has really revealed to me is just how invalid the "cyclists run red lights" rhetoric really is.

I knew drivers ran red lights sometimes, but given how wide the tolerances for the LRT are, it's clear to me that drivers run red lights CONSTANTLY...and not like...just red...LONG red.

As for speed...good luck finding answers...I've been asking for a while and got nothing. But there is no justification for this, for the LRV to be surrounded by cars doing 20 over the limit while it's forced to do 10, 20, 30 under the limit in some places.

Everyone here is on board with slow = safer, but I guarantee you, STOPPED LRVs would get crashed into. At a certain point, the problem is cars.

And I'm so tired of tunnels being painted as the magical solution...Toronto has a streetcar tunnel...it is not car free..

(07-21-2022, 11:06 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(07-20-2022, 09:46 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I think the thing that this has really revealed to me is just how invalid the "cyclists run red lights" rhetoric really is.

I knew drivers ran red lights sometimes, but given how wide the tolerances for the LRT are, it's clear to me that drivers run red lights CONSTANTLY...and not like...just red...LONG red.

As for speed...good luck finding answers...I've been asking for a while and got nothing. But there is no justification for this, for the LRV to be surrounded by cars doing 20 over the limit while it's forced to do 10, 20, 30 under the limit in some places.

Everyone here is on board with slow = safer, but I guarantee you, STOPPED LRVs would get crashed into. At a certain point, the problem is cars.

And I'm so tired of tunnels being painted as the magical solution...Toronto has a streetcar tunnel...it is not car free..

So true! If a cyclist runs a red where nobody is around, I really don’t care at all — they have excellent visibility and can see when it’s safe. And if they mess up, it’s their life on the line, almost certainly nobody else’s.

And as you say, if it’s OK for cars in the road to whip by pedestrians on the sidewalk going 50km/h faster than the pedestrians (at least), then it’s OK for the LRT to go 20km/h faster than the cars in the adjacent lane. That would have the LRT going 80km/h on King, which would be awesome! I think the limiting factor would be acceleration into and out of stations. If the LRT has to be limited to 60km/h (or whatever) for some reason, I’d be OK with using technological measures to prevent adjacent motor vehicles from exceeding 40km/h (or 20km/h less than the LRT speed).

I’m just going to post this again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImU1mG7QC4I

Although one has to ask, at what point is the problem with individual drivers, and not with the system? This guy ignored both traffic control signs and that handy device hanging off the side of the cab known as a side mirror.

(07-21-2022, 12:48 PM)jamincan Wrote: Part of the problem is that anything involving human factors can have very subtle effects that make it less obvious that an intervention improves safety or increases risk. Lots of cars have additional safety features now, such as lane-assist, blind-spot detection, and so forth. On the face of it, these should make vehicle operations safer, but if the driver learns to rely on those features, can they be relied on to be a full substitute for an attentive driver? Will the blind-spot sensor detect the cyclist over-taking on the right in the bike lane?

Quote:This goes into factors like street-design as well, where a safer street according to engineering guidelines is almost always very unsafe when you actually examine statistics. The discrepancy is largely due to human factors - people will drive the speed they feel is safe, not the posted the limit, as an obvious example.

In that sense, "asking people to do better" is precisely the solution we need. Or more precisely, forcing people to do better is the solution we need. Make it so they have no choice but to slow down and be attentive, and they will slow down and be attentive.

(07-27-2022, 11:05 AM)cherrypark Wrote: I think it's something in the central open/close control or the buttons on the doors. We boarded with a stroller in one of those trains a couple weekends ago not realizing the opposing side was out and the driver was able to come back and open it with the control panel at the door.

And then happened to board the same train or this second broken one on the way back too... but were wisened to board at the other accessible area that time.

(09-06-2022, 02:23 PM)ac3r Wrote: Crrrrrrrrrrassssshhh...! https://www.reddit.com/r/waterloo/comments/x7gzwy/time_to_reset_the_lrt_crash_counter/

(09-06-2022, 02:41 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Lovely...illegal left turn in front of massive train.

Can we just start taking these people's licenses away?

Honestly! This shouldn't be remotely controversial...this isn't an error...or if it is...it's evidence of such a low skill level as to also be disqualifying.

Something that does bug me about our road laws is they don't make a distinction between intentional and unintentional acts. If I intentionally break the HTA my punishment should be different than if I simply misjudge a turn.

(09-16-2022, 05:46 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: GRT has posted another video of ION collision close calls:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1UvkarrTNU&t=50s&ab_channel=GrandRiverTransit

You know, they put it to fun music, but this just makes me mad. Having been thrown off my feet by an emergency brake action, these represent potential an actual injuries, caused by drivers paying so little attention they missed the 60 foot long LRV next to them.

These drivers kill people, and then complain they appear out of nowhere, and our politicians pander to these idiots. I wish people would treat this with the seriousness it deserves.

(09-16-2022, 05:59 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(09-16-2022, 05:46 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: GRT has posted another video of ION collision close calls:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1UvkarrTNU&t=50s&ab_channel=GrandRiverTransit

You know, they put it to fun music, but this just makes me mad. Having been thrown off my feet by an emergency brake action, these represent potential an actual injuries, caused by drivers paying so little attention they missed the 60 foot long LRV next to them.

These drivers kill people, and then complain they appear out of nowhere, and our politicians pander to these idiots. I wish people would treat this with the seriousness it deserves.

Yeah, I’m not sure they should be so quick to apply the emergency brake. Ideally, the emergency brake would be applied only if injuries on board the LRT are less likely with it than without. Of course, turning this into training is another matter, given that they probably have less than 1s to decide what to do in a typical scenario.