(04-03-2019, 10:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The fact is, they should have a good idea how long these things will take, if they don't, they aren't managing the project well.  There can be unexpected obstacles and we'd like to hear about those things as well, but they should know what's left.  I believe we (and "we" may include council and maybe even Region staff) just aren't being told.

(04-04-2019, 02:40 PM)urbd Wrote: This will be an unpopular opinion but as long as the system is safe then it should be open, and just looking at the LRVs going up and down the whole line without any visible or serious issues make it seem that it could be safe enough to operate. Yes, I am aware of the legality and the processes and checklists, I am just speaking hypothetically. A system like this in Mexico or Colombia or elsewhere would be open and running right now and just fixed/finished along the way, but Canada has an extremely strict process. Systems that are this complex have perpetual construction and maintenance associated with them, so I would be fine with it opening even if it's not 100% perfect.

(04-04-2019, 02:50 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(04-04-2019, 02:40 PM)urbd Wrote: This will be an unpopular opinion but as long as the system is safe then it should be open, and just looking at the LRVs going up and down the whole line without any visible or serious issues make it seem that it could be safe enough to operate. Yes, I am aware of the legality and the processes and checklists, I am just speaking hypothetically. A system like this in Mexico or Colombia or elsewhere would be open and running right now and just fixed/finished along the way, but Canada has an extremely strict process. Systems that are this complex have perpetual construction and maintenance associated with them, so I would be fine with it opening even if it's not 100% perfect.

What level of service do you recommend opening at?

AFAIK the signals are not yet operating, so they can only run, 3 (or maybe 6) cars safely...meaning service is 30 minute at best.  Currently the iXpress provides better service.  There would be a huge service cut to start running.  More, starting revenue service will interfere with testing (seems like they test one section carefully, before moving on, on revenue service the cars have to run the whole route), so that could actually delay full service even longer.

The last part is the biggest problem, AFAIK neither the region, nor Grandlinq actually own any LRVs right now, since the signoff from Bombardier hasn't happened yet, Bombardier owns them, yes they *could* wave the signoff requirements--that wouldn't be wise. This is an artifact of how the contract is structured, but I think even in Mexico or Columbia, a government would have signoff requirements that need to be met. Part of the disconnect is that the route has been largely ready for some time and we are waiting on vehicles to be ready.

In some cases I might agree, but in this case, we currently have iXpress 200 operating the route, and the costs would be so high I don't think it makes any sense.

(04-04-2019, 03:28 PM)urbd Wrote:

(04-04-2019, 02:50 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: What level of service do you recommend opening at?

AFAIK the signals are not yet operating, so they can only run, 3 (or maybe 6) cars safely...meaning service is 30 minute at best.  Currently the iXpress provides better service.  There would be a huge service cut to start running.  More, starting revenue service will interfere with testing (seems like they test one section carefully, before moving on, on revenue service the cars have to run the whole route), so that could actually delay full service even longer.

The last part is the biggest problem, AFAIK neither the region, nor Grandlinq actually own any LRVs right now, since the signoff from Bombardier hasn't happened yet, Bombardier owns them, yes they *could* wave the signoff requirements--that wouldn't be wise. This is an artifact of how the contract is structured, but I think even in Mexico or Columbia, a government would have signoff requirements that need to be met. Part of the disconnect is that the route has been largely ready for some time and we are waiting on vehicles to be ready.

In some cases I might agree, but in this case, we currently have iXpress 200 operating the route, and the costs would be so high I don't think it makes any sense.

I would be totally fine with 30 min, even 45 min service to start WITH the 200 iXpress still running every 15 min or so (with adjusted route, to fill the middle of the ION 30 min wait).

As for the second part, I am aware of this and yes it's exactly part of the legality/process/bureaucracy I was referring to. What I meant by using Mexico and Colombia as examples is that the legal lines in those places are blurred and adjusted as necessary for political reasons. For example, if this was being built in Mexico and the trains were already 80% tested, the track 100% done, stations 100% done, and the ownership of the trains was not fully transferred legally, I am sure that local Mexican government would simply launch the system (pay a couple officials for X and Y companies to sign some sort of fake agreement while the 'legal' process is being done) even if it's not fully legal/tested/etc. Just putting things into perspective... of course I'd like a fully reliable system but I do feel we are over-cautious here sometimes.

(04-04-2019, 02:40 PM)urbd Wrote: This will be an unpopular opinion but as long as the system is safe then it should be open, and just looking at the LRVs going up and down the whole line without any visible or serious issues make it seem that it could be safe enough to operate. Yes, I am aware of the legality and the processes and checklists, I am just speaking hypothetically.

(04-04-2019, 03:33 PM)neonjoe Wrote: Why not run the 301R buses in parallel...

(04-04-2019, 03:15 PM)plam Wrote: I heard a platform announcement today at the University of Waterloo station. Couldn't quite tell what it was saying.

(04-04-2019, 10:44 PM)jason897 Wrote:

(04-04-2019, 03:15 PM)plam Wrote: I heard a platform announcement today at the University of Waterloo station. Couldn't quite tell what it was saying.

I heard an announcement at Victoria Park this afternoon something along the lines of "system testing is in progress... there is no passenger train service from this station at this time"

(04-05-2019, 10:08 AM)kitborn Wrote: Kitchener Transit drivers are about to do their sign-up for the next spring period. I have been informed that they are signing routes that are currently in effect, meaning that the ION will not start until the next sign-up period (summer). However, it is possible to do a mini sign-up if the ION is completed.

(04-06-2019, 01:07 AM)jeffster Wrote:

(04-05-2019, 10:08 AM)kitborn Wrote: Kitchener Transit drivers are about to do their sign-up for the next spring period. I have been informed that they are signing routes that are currently in effect, meaning that the ION will not start until the next sign-up period (summer). However, it is possible to do a mini sign-up if the ION is completed.

I have a couple friends that work at GRT and both said something similar -- and they're thinking that LRT is likely summer 2020 at the earliest, or spring 2022 at the latest. Apparently 'not even remotely complete' but I have no idea what that means.

(04-06-2019, 01:07 AM)jeffster Wrote:

(04-05-2019, 10:08 AM)kitborn Wrote: Kitchener Transit drivers are about to do their sign-up for the next spring period. I have been informed that they are signing routes that are currently in effect, meaning that the ION will not start until the next sign-up period (summer). However, it is possible to do a mini sign-up if the ION is completed.

I have a couple friends that work at GRT and both said something similar -- and they're thinking that LRT is likely summer 2020 at the earliest, or spring 2022 at the latest. Apparently 'not even remotely complete' but I have no idea what that means.