Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 15 Vote(s) - 3.93 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit
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.
Reply


(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.)
Reply
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.
Reply
(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.
Reply
(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.
Reply
(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?
Reply
(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.
Reply


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?
Reply
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.
Reply
(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.
Reply
(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.
Reply
I was wondering the same thing about the increased frequency from the original plan.
Reply
(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_-T...sp=sharing
Reply


(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_-T...sp=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.
Reply
(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_-T...lAzNrm-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.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 15 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links