ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[MidTowner]

"add frequency rather than extending".  Do you have a source for this.  While I think we might all hope for this, I was lead to believe that train sets would be extended rather than increasing frequency.  Certainly operationally, this is likely the cheaper course of action.

I know it’s not written in stone, but the Baseline Service Plans in the agreement shows the peak frequency improving before an extra car is added (in 2025). I’m inclined to agree with you that there will be a temptation to add extra cars rather than trains when ridership requires more capacity: labour savings are one of the big arguments for LRT. But the service plans do call for increasing frequency first.

[Markster]

Not to mention, adding a 2-pack train doesn't solve crowding issues as well as increasing frequency.

Imagine that service is every 10 minutes, and we've got such wonderful ridership growth that we find that for the entirety of rush hour every train is absolutely crammed, at, let's say, 110% of comfortable capacity.  (for the sticklers out there, that's probably %70 of design capacity, which are usually very... "optimistic" packings)

6 trains over an hour, each at 110% capacity

Say you have an extra LRV, and want to add it in.  You can either (A) tack it on to one of the existing runs, or (B) add a new run. The latter requires a new driver, the former does not.  Let's consider the options:

(A) You get 5 runs of 1 LRV, and 1 run of 2 LRVs
That means 5 runs are still 110% packed, and the remaining is a glorious 55%.  1/6th of your riders are super happy, and the others are very unhappy.

(B) 7 runs of 1 LRV, every 8.5 minutes
That means 7 runs that are 94% packed.  Everyone can now breathe.

You may rebut that rush hour isn't so spread out, and that you could just put the 2-pack on the busiest time, but keep in mind that the 2-pack can't be everywhere at the peak.  At best, they can try to aim it at one specific bottleneck, but our LRT will have multiple major destinations on it, and so it will arrive at other destinations at the wrong time to serve peak there.  At worst, the LRT will have unpredictable running time at rush hour, and the 2-pack will get delayed and miss the peak point crunch entirely.  

It's just much more effective and reliable to increase frequency.

[Canard]

Ahh, service frequency...



...mmmmmmm...

Bonus: read about Toronto's "saviour" train sometime. Really interesting.

[Markster]

Ahh, service frequency...
...mmmmmmm...

Bonus: read about Toronto's "saviour" train sometime. Really interesting.

wow, averaging 66.5 seconds door-opening to door-opening.

[tomh009]

Getting below two minutes is really hard, unless you have low ridership, as people need time to get on and off the trains, too. Tokyo's Yamanote line runs every 2.5 minutes, and there really isn't very much gap between one train leaving the station and the next one arriving.

Anyway, 66 seconds or 2.5 minutes is super cool. But I'd be very happy with a consistent ten-minute interval for ION, for an average wait of just five minutes.

[ert86]

I don't think this has been posted GRT-Business-Plan-2017-21

These are proposed changes, so luckily not final, and I'm not happy about some of them.  Mainly 7 UW (if the new 92 runs early enough and connection are timed properly then I it's fine,) and the 201 Which was shown in the ION planning maps to extended to Fairview park mall, not down Manitou on to Connestoga College (203 would covers this if they stick to the ION maps.)  Extending the 201 all the way there will only cause more delays just like the 200 has had since adding a Sportsworld stop (good stop, but poorly implemented.)

On Page 25, i think they mean revised Route 8 in top corner, not 12.

Personally, I think they should wait until they have a full year of data from the new Presto style cards.  That should allow them to better understand how people are using the transit, and what connection they make.

[Markster]

I don't think this has been posted GRT-Business-Plan-2017-21

These are proposed changes, so luckily not final, and I'm not happy about some of them.  Mainly 7 UW (if the new 92 runs early enough and connection are timed properly then I it's fine,) and the 201 Which was shown in the ION planning maps to extended to Fairview park mall, not down Manitou on to Connestoga College (203 would covers this if they stick to the ION maps.)  Extending the 201 all the way there will only cause more delays just like the 200 has had since adding a Sportsworld stop (good stop, but poorly implemented.)

On Page 25, i think they mean revised Route 8 in top corner, not 12.

Personally, I think they should wait until they have a full year of data from the new Presto style cards.  That should allow them to better understand how people are using the transit, and what connection they make.

You'll find a few pages of discussion about it in the GRT thread!

[danbrotherston]

You may rebut that rush hour isn't so spread out, and that you could just put the 2-pack on the busiest time, but keep in mind that the 2-pack can't be everywhere at the peak.  At best, they can try to aim it at one specific bottleneck, but our LRT will have multiple major destinations on it, and so it will arrive at other destinations at the wrong time to serve peak there.  At worst, the LRT will have unpredictable running time at rush hour, and the 2-pack will get delayed and miss the peak point crunch entirely.  

It's just much more effective and reliable to increase frequency.

You're not going to get any argument from me that more frequent service is better, both in the regard you messaged, but also because more frequent service is better on face value.

But I don't necessarily think that argument will compel a private company to forego the additional savings of two more operators, especially if those trains are only needed at peak hours, which would mean more expensive shifts.  Seems like rarely in our society is quality preferred over...lets call it quantity--which I think is a serious, but rather more general, problem in society.

Regardless, I'm glad that there is a good argument that the agreement requires frequency first, like I said, I had only *heard* from unqualified sources that trains may be doubled first, I hope that that individual is wrong.

[Markster]

But I don't necessarily think that argument will compel a private company to forego the additional savings of two more operators, especially if those trains are only needed at peak hours, which would mean more expensive shifts.  Seems like rarely in our society is quality preferred over...lets call it quantity--which I think is a serious, but rather more general, problem in society.

Regardless, I'm glad that there is a good argument that the agreement requires frequency first, like I said, I had only *heard* from unqualified sources that trains may be doubled first, I hope that that individual is wrong.

It's only 1 more operator.
But, yeah, I have doubts that the best choice for customer service will be chosen over the best choice for operating cost.

I'm pretty sure the idea that trains would be doubled first was in the concept service plan in the project agreement.

[Viewfromthe42]

The issue with operators is that while a rush-hour service-level might only be needed for 2-3h, operators tend to need to work shifts of at least 6-7h, so you wind up paying for many hours of unspent work. Rush hour service times are also often far enough apart that you need separate operators for each one. I'd go into the issues that came up with Ottawa's system, operators, hours worked vs paid, and the ensuing strikes, but it's out there should you be curious.

[danbrotherston]

The issue with operators is that while a rush-hour service-level might only be needed for 2-3h, operators tend to need to work shifts of at least 6-7h, so you wind up paying for many hours of unspent work. Rush hour service times are also often far enough apart that you need separate operators for each one. I'd go into the issues that came up with Ottawa's system, operators, hours worked vs paid, and the ensuing strikes, but it's out there should you be curious.

I think in these situations, they can use split shifts. But split shifts are not pleasant for operators and often demand a premium in pay.

[KevinL]

Bit of a throwback to the unearthing of the old ties under King Street last year - '100-year-old' tram tracks uncovered in Nottingham

[Canard]

...and here are a couple of shots from back then!

   

   

We've come a long way since!

   

[kps]

King & Victoria from the north.

   

[timio]

My eyes may have been tricking me, but I believe I saw a signal gantry on a flatbed at the crossing at Seagram today. I was driving on University at the time, so I could be very wrong about this.

Can anyone confirm?