Posts: 1,312
Threads: 2
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
40
The alternative alignment via Maple Grove and Speedsville seems really out-there to me... and the grade on Speedsville is probably 3 or 4%... Shantz hill seems even steeper to me based on riding my bike up both hills. The current rail alignment just seems to be the easiest and sanest way to go... Grand River Railway probably picked it for a reason back in the day.
Posts: 88
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
3
(11-14-2015, 06:01 PM)Canard Wrote: Yep, big discussion around this over on UT.
UT? Is that another forum I should be following?
Posts: 2,003
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
124
He means UrbanToronto. Besides Toronto-specific stuff, there is a fair bit of GO Transit stuff and a few threads about out-of-GTA projects, such as ION and London's plan for LRT.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
...Just don't mention monorail. They'll crucify you. #experience
Posts: 230
Threads: 6
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
7
11-14-2015, 06:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-14-2015, 07:14 PM by dunkalunk.)
One major concern that was mentioned in the Planning and Works Agenda (beginning page 57 http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...5-1117.pdf ) was the need for rail to rail grade separation between ION and CP due to the catenary not being able to accomodate the height of double-decker trains. This would necessitate previously unforseen grade separations in the vicinity of crossings at Fairway Rd and Eagle St.
I do like the option of a Sportsworld stop in the vicinity of Sportworld/King.
Trains may not necessarily be centre-running down King. If a Highway 8 routing is chosen between Fairway and Sportsworld, I could easily see a side-running LRT on the south side of King/Highway 8.
Adding a stop at King/River also has its merits, however, if there is no stop planned at that intersection, I would see no reason to run along that section of King, even with concerns about encroaching on wetland in Hidden Valley.
Posts: 1,227
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
31
(11-14-2015, 06:58 PM)dunkalunk Wrote: Adding a stop at King/River also has its merits, however, if there is no stop planned at that intersection, I would see no reason to run along that section of King, even with concerns about encroaching on wetland in Hidden Valley.
I think long term we are likely to need a stop in King and River, so it is smart to route the LRT that way.
For Shantz hill, I'm sure something can be worked out re:the grade if there is really a need. I think the discussion should focus on which of the two routings makes more sense and let the engineers take care of the grade thing.
Posts: 2,003
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
124
Count me as someone who isn't fond of the routing using the existing rail line. I don't think it would save as much money as they might think and I don't think it would be that much faster than a routing that follows Hwy 8 to Sportsworld. The station location at Sportsworld would be far superior west of Hwy 8 as well.
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
48
11-14-2015, 07:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-14-2015, 07:29 PM by MidTowner.)
(11-14-2015, 06:01 PM)Canard Wrote: I wanted them to go along the rail line for high speed operation (80 km/h). Going down King means 60 km/h max with lots of stoping at intersections.
What would you reckon the difference in travel times to be between the two options? We would need to know that, but if it's anything significant at all I can't see how it would be worth using King even though a Sportsworld station nearer to King would be better.
clasher's right that the Maple Grove option is a head-scratcher. There is literally nothing at that proposed station on Maple Grove at Speedsville. Maybe there's something to be said for a blank slate, but a routing that puts a station in greenfields and gives up the opportunity to locate one walkable to downtown Preston doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Oh I'm all for downtown Preston. Heck, I think the line should go right through Preston, with 2 stops, then zip along the centre of Coronation with a stop at the Hospital and then Delta and Ainslie (missing 24 entirely). Hespeler Rd. is a disaster that can't be saved. Preston is worth bringing up and I can totally picture how the walkability and so on would benefit from transit there.
What I'm saying about the routing is from Fairway to Sportsworld area: if it goes along King, with a stop at River, it can only move at the same speed as traffic due to the rules. So 50-60 km/h. And it might have to stop at lights, which is basically just River, but still. If it runs along the rail line or beside Highway 8, they can do the max. speed of the LRV which is 80 km/h. So it's definitely going to be faster.
Posts: 4,407
Threads: 15
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
124
Grade separations for crossing a track the LRT runs alongside may be easier if the crossing is not done until a parallel stretch. For example, rather than having the LRT cross the CP line near Fairview, have it stay on the north side until the combined corridor has crossed King; there is a good straight stretch before River where the geometry is more straightforward to tunnel the LRT under rail line and have it then be on the south side.
The Cambridge geometries are not as forgiving, however. Active rail lines cross Eagle twice, one of which is just metres from the Speed River floodplain; a spur also crosses Hespeler Road just south of Eagle though it could perhaps be more easily controlled. There's no easy answer on these areas.
Posts: 1,095
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
58
The thing I find sort of ridiculous that I didn't consider before is how FAR they want it to run down Water St in Galt. Going past GCI, sure that makes sense, but then right downtown Galt? There's barely enough room for 2 automobile lanes, how do they possibly expect to fit 2 LRT lanes?
Posts: 1,227
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
31
(11-14-2015, 10:52 PM)Canard Wrote: What I'm saying about the routing is from Fairway to Sportsworld area: if it goes along King, with a stop at River, it can only move at the same speed as traffic due to the rules. So 50-60 km/h. And it might have to stop at lights, which is basically just River, but still. If it runs along the rail line or beside Highway 8, they can do the max. speed of the LRV which is 80 km/h. So it's definitely going to be faster.
The difference in time would be 8 min instead of 10 min for that stretch. I'm all for a fast LRT, but 2 min is nothing to worry about, just follow the route that makes more sense given actual and potential usage.... I tend to agree that Hespeler Rd is beyond repair. Few people will take the LRT there for shopping or work. Are there usage figures from the BRT in that stretch of road?
Posts: 4,407
Threads: 15
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
124
(11-14-2015, 11:51 PM)GtwoK Wrote: The thing I find sort of ridiculous that I didn't consider before is how FAR they want it to run down Water St in Galt. Going past GCI, sure that makes sense, but then right downtown Galt? There's barely enough room for 2 automobile lanes, how do they possibly expect to fit 2 LRT lanes?
The original 2011 proposal only had a single (bidirectional) track in central Galt - which would make for very tricky timing arrangements. I don't know if they ever came up with an alternate option.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
11-15-2015, 09:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2015, 09:36 AM by Canard.)
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Benton/Charles:
|