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


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 04-04-2017

(04-04-2017, 05:01 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Thanks for posting this.

Although I have to admit I found this just as disappointing as the one about what powers the trains (spoiler: it’s electric!). Lose the cute hand-drawn diagrams and show photos of the actual stuff — inside a TPSS, cab view of the control panel, etc. — and give a few technical details such as the actual voltages involved or what the door control looks like. I don’t mean expand to a one-hour technical overview only of interest to technical people; but talk to an audience that actually cares about the technology and might one day want to learn more.

I have this thought as well, because I'm interested in the technical details, but you must consider the intended audience. Most people probably aren't even aware of the existence of the traffic control, or the train control system. I mean, given that seems like half the city thinks it's a street car, this is probably a great video to show that there is far more too it than that.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 04-04-2017

(04-04-2017, 07:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(04-04-2017, 05:01 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Thanks for posting this.

Although I have to admit I found this just as disappointing as the one about what powers the trains (spoiler: it’s electric!). Lose the cute hand-drawn diagrams and show photos of the actual stuff — inside a TPSS, cab view of the control panel, etc. — and give a few technical details such as the actual voltages involved or what the door control looks like. I don’t mean expand to a one-hour technical overview only of interest to technical people; but talk to an audience that actually cares about the technology and might one day want to learn more.

I have this thought as well, because I'm interested in the technical details, but you must consider the intended audience.  Most people probably aren't even aware of the existence of the traffic control, or the train control system.  I mean, given that seems like half the city thinks it's a street car, this is probably a great video to show that there is far more too it than that.

Sure, but I’m suggesting that even for the intended audience it’s dumbed down. It doesn’t actually answer the title question, really, in any case. Although I could say more about the present video, I have more concrete complaints about the previous “how is it powered” video: really, they couldn’t have had one scene filmed inside a TPSS? Or mentioned the specific voltages, just in passing? There wasn’t a single image of actual electrical equipment. I can’t believe that anybody interested enough to watch wouldn’t be interested in seeing the actual equipment. Why do you think industrial tours, Doors Open, etc., are so popular?


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 04-04-2017

(04-04-2017, 07:34 PM)Drake Wrote:
(04-04-2017, 06:52 PM)Waterlooer Wrote: They really should have moved the Laurier - Waterloo Park stop up to University Ave and then moved the UW stop up to Columbia St. The University routes currently are not connected to any ION station, which isn't good. However, moving some or all of the University routes to Seagram would make those routes slower, and miss the highly used University/Philip stop.

I understand that ION and GRT are two seperate entities. I continue to ask why?

Depends what you mean. Operation and maintenance of ION is contracted out, along with the construction. But as far as riders will be concerned, it will be a single integrated system with one fare. If GRT contracted out the operation of each bus route to a separate company you would not then say that our transit system consisted of 20 (or however many) separate entities, even if that many organizations were involved in running it.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 04-04-2017

(04-04-2017, 07:33 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(04-04-2017, 05:05 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: On a somewhat-related note, has anybody else noticed that the trees on the other side of the path in the park are about to be cut down? I guess they’re 10cm or whatever over from where the new line of trees between the pedestrian and cycling paths will be so they have to come out.

Creative planning could have kept both rows of trees. Just pave the existing path as the bicycle path and create a second path parallel to the existing path, using the existing trees to guide placement of the new path.

To be fair, this is not related to LRT, it's related to the park trails, which is strictly a city project.

That being said, I don't believe keeping the trees would have been possible, never minding the impact on trees of paving right up to them, there isn't enough room for the pedestrian trail between the trees and some of the buildings inside the fencing.  Yes, those buildings could have been moved, but that's far more expensive that simply moving a fence a few feet.

Yes, this really belongs in a different thread. But I don’t really understand what you’re saying, in light of what I recall from the plan. My recollection is that the plan calls for a bicycle trail immediately next to the ION fence, then a line of trees, then a pedestrian path, with each path being 4m in width. OK, maybe there isn’t room between the fence and the existing line of trees for a 4m path, but clearly there is room for, say, a 3.5m path, because there is one there now. So just pave that. Then pave a pedestrian path on the other side of the existing line of trees.

I’m not sure exactly what is planned for the other items in the way of the pedestrian path, but it seems pretty clear that things will be moving, at least if I’m reading the plans at all correctly.

On of the things I’ve noticed about planners is they’re incredibly bad at saying “X is ideal, but 0.9X is fine if that is what is existing or convenient to fit into existing conditions”. This goes for everything from lane widths to wheelchair ramp inclines, and it is very often the case that by pushing a limit just a little, many possibilities are opened up to make things better overall even if the specific aspect being pushed is in some theoretical sense not as good as it “should” be. Take a wheelchair ramp example. Say that ramps should be 1/20 slope (can’t remember right now). But in *this* location, making it 1/19 allows eliminating a switchback. Worth doing? Very likely. Just a tiny bit steeper than what is ideal, but better in other ways. Same concept in the park — the existing path is great, partly because of the trees. So don’t destroy all the existing trees just because they aren’t in *exactly* the right place.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 04-05-2017

I'm just happy they're making videos at all.

They could have done nothing!


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 04-05-2017

(04-04-2017, 10:01 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Yes, this really belongs in a different thread. But I don’t really understand what you’re saying, in light of what I recall from the plan. My recollection is that the plan calls for a bicycle trail immediately next to the ION fence, then a line of trees, then a pedestrian path, with each path being 4m in width. OK, maybe there isn’t room between the fence and the existing line of trees for a 4m path, but clearly there is room for, say, a 3.5m path, because there is one there now. So just pave that. Then pave a pedestrian path on the other side of the existing line of trees.

I’m not sure exactly what is planned for the other items in the way of the pedestrian path, but it seems pretty clear that things will be moving, at least if I’m reading the plans at all correctly.

On of the things I’ve noticed about planners is they’re incredibly bad at saying “X is ideal, but 0.9X is fine if that is what is existing or convenient to fit into existing conditions”. This goes for everything from lane widths to wheelchair ramp inclines, and it is very often the case that by pushing a limit just a little, many possibilities are opened up to make things better overall even if the specific aspect being pushed is in some theoretical sense not as good as it “should” be. Take a wheelchair ramp example. Say that ramps should be 1/20 slope (can’t remember right now). But in *this* location, making it 1/19 allows eliminating a switchback. Worth doing? Very likely. Just a tiny bit steeper than what is ideal, but better in other ways. Same concept in the park — the existing path is great, partly because of the trees. So don’t destroy all the existing trees just because they aren’t in *exactly* the right place.

You do misunderstand what I am saying, I will clarify.  

There is plenty of room on the west side of the line of trees between the trees and the LRT fence.  Probably 5 meters or more.  Enough room for one wide trail, but not separated trails.

The problem is the east side of the line of trees, between the trees and the farmstead where the animals are kept.  Obviously, the fence would need to be moved, and the farmstead would be shrunk far more than it would be by moving the trees.  But the bigger problem is the two buildings that are in the way of the trail.  These buildings are part of the farmstead, and must be inside the fence, but would obstruct your path.

   

In the end, they are fairly small trees.  The philosophy of "compromising" on standards is not a straight forward one, and a more interesting conversation for another place.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 04-05-2017

Can someone make a video of a walk-around and walk-through of the ION LRV on Saturday? Sadly I'm out of town.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - urbd - 04-05-2017

(04-05-2017, 07:21 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(04-04-2017, 10:01 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Yes, this really belongs in a different thread. But I don’t really understand what you’re saying, in light of what I recall from the plan. My recollection is that the plan calls for a bicycle trail immediately next to the ION fence, then a line of trees, then a pedestrian path, with each path being 4m in width. OK, maybe there isn’t room between the fence and the existing line of trees for a 4m path, but clearly there is room for, say, a 3.5m path, because there is one there now. So just pave that. Then pave a pedestrian path on the other side of the existing line of trees.

I’m not sure exactly what is planned for the other items in the way of the pedestrian path, but it seems pretty clear that things will be moving, at least if I’m reading the plans at all correctly.

On of the things I’ve noticed about planners is they’re incredibly bad at saying “X is ideal, but 0.9X is fine if that is what is existing or convenient to fit into existing conditions”. This goes for everything from lane widths to wheelchair ramp inclines, and it is very often the case that by pushing a limit just a little, many possibilities are opened up to make things better overall even if the specific aspect being pushed is in some theoretical sense not as good as it “should” be. Take a wheelchair ramp example. Say that ramps should be 1/20 slope (can’t remember right now). But in *this* location, making it 1/19 allows eliminating a switchback. Worth doing? Very likely. Just a tiny bit steeper than what is ideal, but better in other ways. Same concept in the park — the existing path is great, partly because of the trees. So don’t destroy all the existing trees just because they aren’t in *exactly* the right place.

You do misunderstand what I am saying, I will clarify.  

There is plenty of room on the west side of the line of trees between the trees and the LRT fence.  Probably 5 meters or more.  Enough room for one wide trail, but not separated trails.

The problem is the east side of the line of trees, between the trees and the farmstead where the animals are kept.  Obviously, the fence would need to be moved, and the farmstead would be shrunk far more than it would be by moving the trees.  But the bigger problem is the two buildings that are in the way of the trail.  These buildings are part of the farmstead, and must be inside the fence, but would obstruct your path.



In the end, they are fairly small trees.  The philosophy of "compromising" on standards is not a straight forward one, and a more interesting conversation for another place.

Probably reviewing the latest designs from March 23 for the Waterloo Park Central Promenade would help here (and yes, related to ION as it is a direct interface between one station and part of the line):

http://www.waterloo.ca/centralpromenade/


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 04-05-2017

(04-05-2017, 09:56 AM)urbd Wrote: Probably reviewing the latest designs from March 23 for the Waterloo Park Central Promenade would help here (and yes, related to ION as it is a direct interface between one station and part of the line):

http://www.waterloo.ca/centralpromenade/

Yes, the documents also show the constraints with the farmstead buildings.

It isn't related to ION as in it isn't being constructed by Grandlinq, nor is it required or necessitated by the LRT work, nor do Grandlinq agreements with respect to tree replacements apply to it (which matters specifically to this discussion).  Just because they are next to each other does not make them directly related.

I do think it is important to keep these things clear because I expect the LRT to be blamed for all construction going on now, like the King St. streetscape rebuild planned in the next few months.

If you mean related enough to discuss here, then sure, although it would probably fit better in the trails thread, or in a waterloo park thread.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 04-05-2017

(04-05-2017, 07:21 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(04-04-2017, 10:01 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Yes, this really belongs in a different thread. But I don’t really understand what you’re saying, in light of what I recall from the plan. My recollection is that the plan calls for a bicycle trail immediately next to the ION fence, then a line of trees, then a pedestrian path, with each path being 4m in width. OK, maybe there isn’t room between the fence and the existing line of trees for a 4m path, but clearly there is room for, say, a 3.5m path, because there is one there now. So just pave that. Then pave a pedestrian path on the other side of the existing line of trees.

You do misunderstand what I am saying, I will clarify.  

There is plenty of room on the west side of the line of trees between the trees and the LRT fence.  Probably 5 meters or more.  Enough room for one wide trail, but not separated trails.

The problem is the east side of the line of trees, between the trees and the farmstead where the animals are kept.  Obviously, the fence would need to be moved, and the farmstead would be shrunk far more than it would be by moving the trees.  But the bigger problem is the two buildings that are in the way of the trail.  These buildings are part of the farmstead, and must be inside the fence, but would obstruct your path.



In the end, they are fairly small trees.  The philosophy of "compromising" on standards is not a straight forward one, and a more interesting conversation for another place.

Thanks, I think I see what you’re saying. I think I’m making some assumptions about what is about to happen. I guess we’ll see. I reserve the right to be confirmed in my irritation if the new line of trees is planted less than, say, 1m from where the existing line is. But if it moves over significantly than I may have to admit the plan actually does make sense.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - UrbanCanoe - 04-05-2017

An early preview of the new chimes (as the doors close) has been released! Hear it for yourself here: https://www.instagram.com/p/BSgh7_IDpnf/

The notes are a descending triad of "G"--"E"--"C"


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 04-05-2017

Sure hope that what we're hearing at the start is a pre-chime. It would be very shocking if the chime started almost at the exact same moment as the doors closed, giving little warning to get clear of them.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Markster - 04-05-2017

TTC for comparison:
https://youtu.be/m18Qhy1EdLk?t=12s

ION seems to be in a minor key, in comparison.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - DHLawrence - 04-05-2017

Sounds like the chime they use on the new streetcars (appropriate since they come from the same place).


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - yige_t - 04-05-2017

(04-05-2017, 01:59 PM)UrbanCanoe Wrote: An early preview of the new chimes (as the doors close) has been released! Hear it for yourself here: https://www.instagram.com/p/BSgh7_IDpnf/

The notes are a descending triad of "G"--"E"--"C"
Sounds identical to the TTC Flexity chime:

https://youtu.be/XLezCxEL-5U?t=29s