ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[ijmorlan]

Do you mean Map 5 on Page 23?

I guess is depends on how your PDF reader works.  It's page 23 in the document, but page 25 when the cover pages are included.

OK, that’s probably what’s confusing me.

What I want to know is what happens south of approximately Central where the road now only has one vehicular lane in each direction, plus separated bicycle lanes and sidewalks. There is some parking, but not continuous on both sides so even if one eliminated it (not very many spots, will cause complaints but not likely a big difference), I’m not sure where space for the LRT would come from.

Of course I think we should be looking at having King be a single vehicular lane southbound (and Regina similarly northbound), but I’m curious what the planners have in mind.

[Bob_McBob]

It kind of looks like they just half-assed drawing in the King St section of the potential Stage 3 from a regional council report in 2018.

[Rainrider22]

For me the Victoria / Highland should be the next stage 3... This route would service the transit hub as well. If it ended at the Boardwalk, then the next natural progression would be that Waterloo route.

[jwilliamson]

What's the ridership like on the 204? I wouldn't have expected that corridor to have anywhere near the numbers as University Ave.

[tomh009]

Way back in 2016, it was 2200 boardings per day. It's surely more busy now but I don't know where to find more current ridership data.
https://www.grt.ca/en/about-grt/resource...7-2021.pdf

[the_conestoga_guy]

I personally think that Victoria North/Highland would be better served by installing BRT corridors with proper traffic signal priority measures than by adding LRT. I'm no traffic planner, but I think the benefits that could be achieved by moving our buses more efficiently along these corridors would be more meaningful than losing right-of-way space to an LRT and squishing the local bus routes into the remaining single lane with personal vehicles. Then maybe after 50-75 years or so, we could revisit the corridor and install a raised platform for an LRT or equivalent if necessitated.

Of course, this is (probably) moot until the new highway 7 is installed. I can't see the Region giving up road space in this corridor to transit projects until that happens. In the short term, I think the priority should be to efficiently move buses through the congested stretch of Victoria, in and out of the transit terminal once it's built.

[Bytor]

I personally think that Victoria North/Highland would be better served by installing BRT corridors with proper traffic signal priority measures than by adding LRT. I'm no traffic planner, but I think the benefits that could be achieved by moving our buses more efficiently along these corridors would be more meaningful than losing right-of-way space to an LRT and squishing the local bus routes into the remaining single lane with personal vehicles. Then maybe after 50-75 years or so, we could revisit the corridor and install a raised platform for an LRT or equivalent if necessitated.

Of course, this is (probably) moot until the new highway 7 is installed. I can't see the Region giving up road space in this corridor to transit projects until that happens. In the short term, I think the priority should be to efficiently move buses through the congested stretch of Victoria, in and out of the transit terminal once it's built.

If you want efficiency then you want an LRT instead of a BRT. The only place that BRTs make sense is routes where you know it's going to take a route a really, really long time to get over that tipping point where LRTs become cheaper per passenger ride than BRTs.

In the fall of 2019 after ION started running with it's 25,000 average weekday riders was running at (by my calculations dividing operating costs by known ridership) $3.10/ride compared to the GRT bus average of $4.75/ride.

[the_conestoga_guy]

I personally think that Victoria North/Highland would be better served by installing BRT corridors with proper traffic signal priority measures than by adding LRT. I'm no traffic planner, but I think the benefits that could be achieved by moving our buses more efficiently along these corridors would be more meaningful than losing right-of-way space to an LRT and squishing the local bus routes into the remaining single lane with personal vehicles. Then maybe after 50-75 years or so, we could revisit the corridor and install a raised platform for an LRT or equivalent if necessitated.

Of course, this is (probably) moot until the new highway 7 is installed. I can't see the Region giving up road space in this corridor to transit projects until that happens. In the short term, I think the priority should be to efficiently move buses through the congested stretch of Victoria, in and out of the transit terminal once it's built.

If you want efficiency then you want an LRT instead of a BRT. The only place that BRTs make sense is routes where you know it's going to take a route a really, really long time to get over that tipping point where LRTs become cheaper per passenger ride than BRTs.

In the fall of 2019 after ION started running with it's 25,000 average weekday riders was running at (by my calculations dividing operating costs by known ridership) $3.10/ride compared to the GRT bus average of $4.75/ride.

I guess "efficiency" wasn't the right word in my case. Rather, I'd prefer to allocate our finite capital investment dollars into improving our bus infrastructure and buying more buses instead of spending it on a single project such as this. I know this is a boring solution, but I think it could have the greatest impact on the entire system. 

If I had complete control and unlimited budget I would:

1. Cancel the highway 7 project; re-invest some of this money into the existing highway.
   
2. Start AD2W GO with 15-min headways
   
3. Install LRT along Highland/Victoria N corridor, raised through King/Victoria intersection to allow for bus-only lanes through downtown.
   
4. Install bus priority signals along the entirety of the corridor.
   

Unfortunately, we're bound by political and and financial constraints, so I can't see anything like this coming to fruition.

[Bytor]

What's the ridership like on the 204? I wouldn't have expected that corridor to have anywhere near the numbers as University Ave.

According to the numbers I got from GRT last summer, the 204 has been bouncing around 2,250/weekday since 2016 up until teh pandemic. In 2020 it was about 1,500/weekday.

https://ibb.co/album/tmD0ZQ

[Bytor]

For me the Victoria / Highland should be the next stage 3...  This route would service the transit hub as well.  If it ended at the Boardwalk, then the next natural progression would be that Waterloo route.

204  pre-pandemic was stagnated at roughly 2,250 weekday riders on average since at least 2016, maybe before, so no where near needing an LRT. Also, it was the only existing iXpress route that did not a see a bump in ridership when LRT service started in 2019.

Given that both Highland and Victoria terminate well south of the south end of the Boardwalk, I'm not sure that the Victoria/Highland route is the best one to get LRT access to The Boardwalk. The King/University/Erb route at least terminates at the north end of The Boardwalk, even i fthat isn't ideal.

Not turning onto Erb and just continuing down University Ave W to Ira Needles would get you to a central part of The Boardwalk, but there's that big gap ith no good destinations from Erb to Fischer-Hallman.

Unless one could build both Victoria/Highland and King/University/Erb routes and connect their tails via Ira Needles?

[tomh009]

I personally think that Victoria North/Highland would be better served by installing BRT corridors with proper traffic signal priority measures than by adding LRT. I'm no traffic planner, but I think the benefits that could be achieved by moving our buses more efficiently along these corridors would be more meaningful than losing right-of-way space to an LRT and squishing the local bus routes into the remaining single lane with personal vehicles. Then maybe after 50-75 years or so, we could revisit the corridor and install a raised platform for an LRT or equivalent if necessitated.

However ... the primary motivation for the LRT wasn't just moving people, it was driving development, which it is doing in droves.

When phase 3 is built, I think it'll be safe to assume that those objectives are the same.

[danbrotherston]

I personally think that Victoria North/Highland would be better served by installing BRT corridors with proper traffic signal priority measures than by adding LRT. I'm no traffic planner, but I think the benefits that could be achieved by moving our buses more efficiently along these corridors would be more meaningful than losing right-of-way space to an LRT and squishing the local bus routes into the remaining single lane with personal vehicles. Then maybe after 50-75 years or so, we could revisit the corridor and install a raised platform for an LRT or equivalent if necessitated.

Of course, this is (probably) moot until the new highway 7 is installed. I can't see the Region giving up road space in this corridor to transit projects until that happens. In the short term, I think the priority should be to efficiently move buses through the congested stretch of Victoria, in and out of the transit terminal once it's built.

Contrary to the beliefs of regional engineers there is no reason that a bus cannot use an LRT right of way. Many many cities do this.

[danbrotherston]

I personally think that Victoria North/Highland would be better served by installing BRT corridors with proper traffic signal priority measures than by adding LRT. I'm no traffic planner, but I think the benefits that could be achieved by moving our buses more efficiently along these corridors would be more meaningful than losing right-of-way space to an LRT and squishing the local bus routes into the remaining single lane with personal vehicles. Then maybe after 50-75 years or so, we could revisit the corridor and install a raised platform for an LRT or equivalent if necessitated.

Of course, this is (probably) moot until the new highway 7 is installed. I can't see the Region giving up road space in this corridor to transit projects until that happens. In the short term, I think the priority should be to efficiently move buses through the congested stretch of Victoria, in and out of the transit terminal once it's built.

If you want efficiency then you want an LRT instead of a BRT. The only place that BRTs make sense is routes where you know it's going to take a route a really, really long time to get over that tipping point where LRTs become cheaper per passenger ride than BRTs.

In the fall of 2019 after ION started running with it's 25,000 average weekday riders was running at (by my calculations dividing operating costs by known ridership) $3.10/ride compared to the GRT bus average of $4.75/ride.

BRT is basically just buses. If we used BRT sensibly, BRT would have advantages like buses.

E.g., in our congested core, we built dedicated bus lanes to ensure buses moved swiftly past traffic, but then had the flexibility in the periphery to serve many routes.

The way we ACTUALLY do BRT is backwards, we build BRT lanes in the periphery where they don't really help much, but reduce flexibility, then force buses to share traffic in the congested core.

A pessimal policy....

LRT is good because it forces us not be pessimal.

[ac3r]

For me the Victoria / Highland should be the next stage 3...  This route would service the transit hub as well.  If it ended at the Boardwalk, then the next natural progression would be that Waterloo route.

204  pre-pandemic was stagnated at roughly 2,250 weekday riders on average since at least 2016, maybe before, so no where near needing an LRT. Also, it was the only existing iXpress route that did not a see a bump in ridership when LRT service started in 2019.

Given that both Highland and Victoria terminate well south of the south end of the Boardwalk, I'm not sure that the Victoria/Highland route is the best one to get LRT access to The Boardwalk. The King/University/Erb route at least terminates at the north end of The Boardwalk, even i fthat isn't ideal.

Not turning onto Erb and just continuing down University Ave W to Ira Needles would get you to a central part of The Boardwalk, but there's that big gap ith no good destinations from Erb to Fischer-Hallman.

Unless one could build both Victoria/Highland and King/University/Erb routes and connect their tails via Ira Needles?

You're looking at it the wrong way. Passenger numbers was only half the reason why we built the LRT. The other half was because it's a great catalyst for transit oriented development. You can't just look at raw data of the present and form opinions or draw conclusions as that's flawed, especially when it comes to planning. Half the bus routes in the city wouldn't exist if we were just talking ridership numbers to justify them.

While this isn't a great comparison, take a video game like City Skylines...or anything capable of modeling. Plop down a rapid transit system in an area, adjust zoning and watch how fast the areas around the stations grow. If the region had unlimited money and built a bunch of light rail or subway lines around the city, you'd see previously stagnant areas suddenly flourish. The 204 may not have the highest ridership, but if we replaced it with rapid transit you'd see more people taking transit and you'd see more development around it (which means even higher ridership).

In planning, you have to consider the future, not just the present.

[ac3r]

For me the Victoria / Highland should be the next stage 3...  This route would service the transit hub as well.  If it ended at the Boardwalk, then the next natural progression would be that Waterloo route.

This is what I'd like to see as well. It could even extend out to Breslau one day. And if I had a blank chequebook, I'd have a terminus built at the airport. I mean what good is an international airport without transit connections?

I've suggested that to a friend in my line of work and got called crazy haha. But then one week we were both in Germany. We took a trip to Nürnberg for something. They're a city with roughly the same makeup as us. It has a similar population, has two neighbouring cities connected to it (Fürth and Erlangen) and yet they have 3 subway lines, streetcars, a few S-Bahn lines and plenty of buses. A few years back they extended one of the subway lines to their international airport and it has been an incredibly useful tool to help grow the city and get people around.

With airlines interested in our airport for a multitude of reasons, we ought to invest in a good transit connection to it. I know there's a suggestion for Metrolink to have a little extension to it from the future Breslau station, but with the pace they operate at I think we'd be waiting for decades. We need something to go to our airport...even if it's just an express bus.