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 - jeffster - 06-08-2019

Just looked at their ION schedule -- man. They need to clean up the scheduling. Maybe I am just used to the TTC, but their paperwork makes zero sense. Though if I am reading correctly, I am surprised at the early service (before 5), this is earlier than Toronto, though doesn't run as late.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - plam - 06-08-2019

(06-08-2019, 12:52 AM)jeffster Wrote: Just looked at their ION schedule -- man. They need to clean up the scheduling. Maybe I am just used to the TTC, but their paperwork makes zero sense. Though if I am reading correctly, I am surprised at the early service (before 5), this is earlier than Toronto, though doesn't run as late.

Looks like a fairly standard paper schedule to me. It does start surprisingly early and finishes about the same time as Montreal's Metro. Maybe not as late on Saturdays. (Montreal runs till about 1am on Saturdays and 00:30 otherwise.)

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 06-08-2019

Keep in mind that the tracks need to be free overnight for freight movements on the Waterloo Spur.

That said, I'd love to see the replacement shuttle setup used to someday bring overnight bus service on the 301.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 06-08-2019

(06-07-2019, 10:13 PM)tomh009 Wrote: All the streets you mention are city streets, not regional roads. I believe the city owns the sidewalks, too, though I could possibly be wrong on that. So the city is in control: if you want to make a proposal, you can either present to council or join in with the Gaukel Greenway group

The terminal land is just like private ownership of property, it just happens to be the region. City will generally not have any rights on that unless it chooses to expropriate the land.

I believe Charles is Regional.

Anyway, my point is that the Region shouldn’t just sell the land, no strings attached. Instead, they should work with the City to plan what the block will look like at street level. If that includes severing part of the block to widen the space available at Gaukel or some other adjustment to property boundaries, that is best done cooperatively between the two governments. The relationship between the building and the surrounding streets should also be worked out. Then the developer can decide what to build, how tall, how much commercial, etc. within the urban planning context established by the City and the Region.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 06-08-2019

(06-08-2019, 09:41 AM)KevinL Wrote: Keep in mind that the tracks need to be free overnight for freight movements on the Waterloo Spur.

That said, I'd love to see the replacement shuttle setup used to someday bring overnight bus service on the 301.

The LRT is supposed to run both ways on the northbound track during freight hours. Operating this way, the only conflict between LRT and freight is between the switch in Waterloo Town Square parking lot to the crossover near the Perimeter Institute.

Except that I just took a look at the ION schedule, and it shows a scheduled 10 minute travel time between Northfield and Waterloo Public Square/Willis Way, implying that only a 20 minute headway can be maintained between those points on a single track with no intermediate passing sidings, but the schedule calls for 15 minute headway right up to the end of service at 01:00. So now I’m confused about what they are planning.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 06-08-2019

(06-08-2019, 12:52 AM)jeffster Wrote: Just looked at their ION schedule -- man. They need to clean up the scheduling. Maybe I am just used to the TTC, but their paperwork makes zero sense. Though if I am reading correctly, I am surprised at the early service (before 5), this is earlier than Toronto, though doesn't run as late.

I don’t understand what you think is wrong with it. It has one column for each stop, showing the times the LRT stops. Headways are 10 or 15 minutes at all times, except when it shuts down from about 01:00 to 05:00. The only change I would make is to use 24-hour time. What do you think should be changed about the published schedules? And are you concerned about the actual scheduling, or the way the scheduling is presented and displayed in the published materials?

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 06-08-2019

(06-08-2019, 10:35 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(06-07-2019, 10:13 PM)tomh009 Wrote: All the streets you mention are city streets, not regional roads. I believe the city owns the sidewalks, too, though I could possibly be wrong on that. So the city is in control: if you want to make a proposal, you can either present to council or join in with the Gaukel Greenway group

The terminal land is just like private ownership of property, it just happens to be the region. City will generally not have any rights on that unless it chooses to expropriate the land.

I believe Charles is Regional.

Anyway, my point is that the Region shouldn’t just sell the land, no strings attached. Instead, they should work with the City to plan what the block will look like at street level. If that includes severing part of the block to widen the space available at Gaukel or some other adjustment to property boundaries, that is best done cooperatively between the two governments. The relationship between the building and the surrounding streets should also be worked out. Then the developer can decide what to build, how tall, how much commercial, etc. within the urban planning context established by the City and the Region.

You are indeed correct about Charles, my mistake. But that border unlikely to change anyway given that the LRT tracks now define the edge of Charles St against this property.

In any case, planning and zoning is a city responsibility, and I think any kind of joint decision-making here would become super complex and difficult to reach consensus. I strongly believe this kind of thing -- especially regarding parks in Kitchener -- needs to be done by the city. The city can use zoning (and the variance negotiation process) to drive the design of the development. And if they want to go further on this, the city can purchase the property from the region, and then resell to a developer with the right conditions.

I have no complaints about our regional government, I just don't see this kind of joint planning to be a workable model.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - jamincan - 06-08-2019

I thought someone had said somewhere that the City owned the land the transit centre was on, and that the region only leased it. Is that not correct?

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 06-08-2019

It's true that the City built the terminal in 1988, and the Region took it over in 2000 when transit was made regional. Who now has title to the land, I'm not sure.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Bob_McBob - 06-08-2019

(06-08-2019, 09:41 AM)KevinL Wrote: Keep in mind that the tracks need to be free overnight for freight movements on the Waterloo Spur.

The region can safely operate the late night schedule as late as they want without interfering with the single freight train to Elmira. The way the freight train is typically scheduled they will be running concurrently anyway. In fact, they've even occasionally been running the freight train during the day over the last six months.

http://archive.is/uYwJc

Quote:Safe Separation of Light Rail Vehicles from Freight Railroad Trains

Since the structural crashworthiness of a light rail vehicle is not the same as a freight railroad car or a commuter rail car, safety is the paramount concern. The preferred approach is to only run freight trains on LRT tracks when LRT trains are not operating. Although considerable effort was spent on accommodating service for freight industries during a time frame when LRT trains were not operating, the freight operating time that was needed to serve the chemical industries in the region was greater than the time period when LRT service was not running. The Region of Waterloo, CN, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, and the shippers developed a workable consensus to restrict freight railroad service to the hours between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. This is the time frame when the LRT service is operating its late night off-peak service with longer 30 minute headways. In general, the time needed for the freight railroad movement is about 15 minutes, which allows the freight railroad service to operate without impacting the LRT service even when their operations coexist.

To achieve a safe separation, the system in Waterloo reserved an exclusive route for freight railroads that cannot be violated by the LRT trains.  An automatic train protection (ATP) system was installed that will prevent the LRT trains from entering the route reserved for the freight railroad. To prevent a freight railroad from violating a route reserved for LRT trains, derails are provided as an additional means to prevent a freight train from entering a track reserved for LRV service. Derails are controlled at the Central Control Facility (CCF) and the freight railroad cannot pass the derails until the route is safely reserved for their movement.


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 06-08-2019

(06-08-2019, 02:01 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote:
(06-08-2019, 09:41 AM)KevinL Wrote: Keep in mind that the tracks need to be free overnight for freight movements on the Waterloo Spur.

The region can safely operate the late night schedule as late as they want without interfering with the single freight train to Elmira. The way the freight train is typically scheduled they will be running concurrently anyway. In fact, they've even occasionally been running the freight train during the day over the last six months.

http://archive.is/uYwJc

Quote:Safe Separation of Light Rail Vehicles from Freight Railroad Trains

Since the structural crashworthiness of a light rail vehicle is not the same as a freight railroad car or a commuter rail car, safety is the paramount concern. The preferred approach is to only run freight trains on LRT tracks when LRT trains are not operating. Although considerable effort was spent on accommodating service for freight industries during a time frame when LRT trains were not operating, the freight operating time that was needed to serve the chemical industries in the region was greater than the time period when LRT service was not running. The Region of Waterloo, CN, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, and the shippers developed a workable consensus to restrict freight railroad service to the hours between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. This is the time frame when the LRT service is operating its late night off-peak service with longer 30 minute headways. In general, the time needed for the freight railroad movement is about 15 minutes, which allows the freight railroad service to operate without impacting the LRT service even when their operations coexist.

To achieve a safe separation, the system in Waterloo reserved an exclusive route for freight railroads that cannot be violated by the LRT trains.  An automatic train protection (ATP) system was installed that will prevent the LRT trains from entering the route reserved for the freight railroad. To prevent a freight railroad from violating a route reserved for LRT trains, derails are provided as an additional means to prevent a freight train from entering a track reserved for LRV service. Derails are controlled at the Central Control Facility (CCF) and the freight railroad cannot pass the derails until the route is safely reserved for their movement.

That is very interesting, but conflicts in two interesting ways with what appears to actually be happening:

1) The derails (well, at least the one near me in Uptown) don’t activate when the signal is red. I’ve only seen it activated during testing, and my understanding is that it is connected to the oversize detector. So the derail doesn’t (apparently) have anything to do with keeping freight off LRT track but only with keeping oversize, OCS-destroying, freight off LRT track.

2) The recently published schedule shows 15 minute headways right up to the end of service, meaning I don’t see how they can use the single-track LRT operation between 23:00 and 01:00 as previously planned.

So now I’m even more confused than before.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Bob_McBob - 06-08-2019

I was wondering the same thing about the increased frequency from the original plan.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 06-08-2019

(06-08-2019, 12:51 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(06-08-2019, 10:35 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: I believe Charles is Regional.

Anyway, my point is that the Region shouldn’t just sell the land, no strings attached. Instead, they should work with the City to plan what the block will look like at street level. If that includes severing part of the block to widen the space available at Gaukel or some other adjustment to property boundaries, that is best done cooperatively between the two governments. The relationship between the building and the surrounding streets should also be worked out. Then the developer can decide what to build, how tall, how much commercial, etc. within the urban planning context established by the City and the Region.

You are indeed correct about Charles, my mistake. But that border unlikely to change anyway given that the LRT tracks now define the edge of Charles St against this property.

In any case, planning and zoning is a city responsibility, and I think any kind of joint decision-making here would become super complex and difficult to reach consensus. I strongly believe this kind of thing -- especially regarding parks in Kitchener -- needs to be done by the city. The city can use zoning (and the variance negotiation process) to drive the design of the development. And if they want to go further on this, the city can purchase the property from the region, and then resell to a developer with the right conditions.

I have no complaints about our regional government, I just don't see this kind of joint planning to be a workable model.

Just because Charles cannot move, does not mean there cannot be adjustments to the lot.

Here is my proposal, which is an extension of the Gaukel greenway idea.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NvS_-T7R06k1lIuNl5QEXrlAzNrm-Kba&usp=sharing

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 06-08-2019

(06-08-2019, 06:30 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Just because Charles cannot move, does not mean there cannot be adjustments to the lot.

Here is my proposal, which is an extension of the Gaukel greenway idea.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NvS_-T7R06k1lIuNl5QEXrlAzNrm-Kba&usp=sharing

That’s pretty cool, and a perfect illustration of why it should not simply be sold off like any random development parcel. Essentially you’re saying that Joseph doesn’t need to be a through-street, so the bus terminal site can be directly adjacent to the park. Then once this is done, there is nothing special about the current Joseph road allowance, so if a different shape for the park and non-park areas is needed, that can be done at the same time. I like the idea, which I think you are also suggesting, that the Gaukel greenway should be wider than the existing street, at least south of Charles. And the idea that Joseph isn’t needed as a through street I think makes some sense. If there is anywhere we can pare down the motor vehicle network in favour of excellent pedestrian and bicycle connections, it’s right here downtown. The stretch you’re suggesting closing has absolutely no driveways, so similar to Gaukel it doesn’t introduce any issues with maintaining existing access. At a minimum, the bus terminal development should not be allowed to have any vehicle access from either Gaukel or Joseph, in order to avoid creating problems for future greenway proposals.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 06-08-2019

(06-08-2019, 06:30 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(06-08-2019, 12:51 PM)tomh009 Wrote: You are indeed correct about Charles, my mistake. But that border unlikely to change anyway given that the LRT tracks now define the edge of Charles St against this property.

In any case, planning and zoning is a city responsibility, and I think any kind of joint decision-making here would become super complex and difficult to reach consensus. I strongly believe this kind of thing -- especially regarding parks in Kitchener -- needs to be done by the city. The city can use zoning (and the variance negotiation process) to drive the design of the development. And if they want to go further on this, the city can purchase the property from the region, and then resell to a developer with the right conditions.

I have no complaints about our regional government, I just don't see this kind of joint planning to be a workable model.

Just because Charles cannot move, does not mean there cannot be adjustments to the lot.

Here is my proposal, which is an extension of the Gaukel greenway idea.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NvS_-T7R06k1lIuNl5QEXrlAzNrm-Kba&usp=sharing

Your proposal doesn't have any impact or changes on Charles, though, which was my point. Whatever is done here should be driven by the City of Kitchener, in my opinion.