ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[drum118]

5 minute service sound great, but it comes at a cost and inconvenience.

First of all, you need cars and spares to meet that 5 minute schedule and that is both an operation cost as well capital cost. Need at least 15% spare ratio plus the X cars on line. It cost money to put drivers in the seat of those cars as well to maintain them on a daily base. Cost of power to run the cars and etc.

If you have 5 minute service, then each crossing will see a train about every 2.5 minutes that will interfere the the flow of traffic and pedestrians. Who do you think will bitch the loudest and have a better say against the 5 minute service?

The lowest I have seen with 2/3 car trains (200-300') has been 10 minutes both in NA and Europe when crossing intersections other than Toronto that use single cars.

Most places in the US would love to see 7 minute service when they mostly see 15-20 minute service today for 66' cars, let alone 100'

[ijmorlan]

5 minute service sound great, but it comes at a cost and inconvenience.

First of all, you need cars and spares to meet that 5 minute schedule and that is both an operation cost as well capital cost. Need at least 15% spare ratio plus the X cars on line. It cost money to put drivers in the seat of those cars as well to maintain them on a daily base. Cost of power to run the cars and etc.

If you have 5 minute service, then each crossing will see a train about every 2.5 minutes that will interfere the the flow of traffic and pedestrians. Who do you think will bitch the loudest and have a better say against the 5 minute service?

The lowest I have seen with 2/3 car trains (200-300') has been 10 minutes both in NA and Europe when crossing intersections other than Toronto that use single cars.

Most places in the US would love to see 7 minute service when they mostly see 15-20 minute service today for 66' cars, let alone 100'

The discussion was in the context of rising ridership, justifying more vehicles. So the question is whether to run 2-car consists every 10 minutes or single cars every 5; and the only significant difference in system operating cost there is in the drivers; there is no capital cost difference.

Given the number of people that would be carried by such a service, I think one brief interruption every 2.5 minutes on average is easily justifiable. Remember, it’s perfectly routine for a typical major road to have its traffic flow interrupted every couple of minutes: it’s called a traffic light. A certain amount of fine-tuning of crossings would be needed to minimize the time during which road traffic would need to stop but ultimately it wouldn’t really be that different from having a cross street with a traffic light at the location of the crossing.

[MidTowner]

The discussion was in the context of rising ridership, justifying more vehicles. So the question is whether to run 2-car consists every 10 minutes or single cars every 5; and the only significant difference in system operating cost there is in the drivers; there is no capital cost difference.

Given the number of people that would be carried by such a service, I think one brief interruption every 2.5 minutes on average is easily justifiable. Remember, it’s perfectly routine for a typical major road to have its traffic flow interrupted every couple of minutes: it’s called a traffic light. A certain amount of fine-tuning of crossings would be needed to minimize the time during which road traffic would need to stop but ultimately it wouldn’t really be that different from having a cross street with a traffic light at the location of the crossing.

You're absolutely right about the motor traffic delays- they would be trivial in the face of the kind of ridership that would prompt a conversation about five-minute frequency. But I don't really see the need for five minutes- if the question is between ten minute and five minute frequency, yes, that's significant. But we should be at eight-minute headways now, and I can't really see the benefit of moving from seven or eight minutes to five, presuming zero capacity issues with the multiple car trains.

At seven minutes, a rider doesn't really have to check a schedule. Most of the benefits of increased frequency have been realized by that point.

[taylortbb]

But I don't really see the need for five minutes- if the question is between ten minute and five minute frequency, yes, that's significant. But we should be at eight-minute headways now, and I can't really see the benefit of moving from seven or eight minutes to five, presuming zero capacity issues with the multiple car trains.

At seven minutes, a rider doesn't really have to check a schedule. Most of the benefits of increased frequency have been realized by that point.

Anything less than 5 mins I'm probably going to check a schedule, especially when I've got to wait outdoors and it's cold.

That said, right now I'd rather have increased off-peak service than 5 min peak service. If we could get to every 10 mins or better until 10pm Monday to Saturday I think that would be a huge improvement. Right now I often walk home and get my car if I'm going somewhere after work and will be out past the end of 10 minute service.

[Spokes]

5 minute service sound great, but it comes at a cost and inconvenience.

First of all, you need cars and spares to meet that 5 minute schedule and that is both an operation cost as well capital cost. Need at least 15% spare ratio plus the X cars on line. It cost money to put drivers in the seat of those cars as well to maintain them on a daily base. Cost of power to run the cars and etc.

If you have 5 minute service, then each crossing will see a train about every 2.5 minutes that will interfere the the flow of traffic and pedestrians. Who do you think will bitch the loudest and have a better say against the 5 minute service?

The lowest I have seen with 2/3 car trains (200-300') has been 10 minutes both in NA and Europe when crossing intersections other than Toronto that use single cars.

Most places in the US would love to see 7 minute service when they mostly see 15-20 minute service today for 66' cars, let alone 100'

How many spares are needed?  And do we have now?

[ijmorlan]

5 minute service sound great, but it comes at a cost and inconvenience.

First of all, you need cars and spares to meet that 5 minute schedule and that is both an operation cost as well capital cost. Need at least 15% spare ratio plus the X cars on line. It cost money to put drivers in the seat of those cars as well to maintain them on a daily base. Cost of power to run the cars and etc.

If you have 5 minute service, then each crossing will see a train about every 2.5 minutes that will interfere the the flow of traffic and pedestrians. Who do you think will bitch the loudest and have a better say against the 5 minute service?

The lowest I have seen with 2/3 car trains (200-300') has been 10 minutes both in NA and Europe when crossing intersections other than Toronto that use single cars.

Most places in the US would love to see 7 minute service when they mostly see 15-20 minute service today for 66' cars, let alone 100'

How many spares are needed?  And do we have now?

We have 14 vehicles, and I believe the plan was to have as many as 12 of them in service at one time, with 2 spares.

If the route is a 90 minute round trip (time from one departure from a station to the next departure of the same vehicle from the same station in the same direction), then this would allow 7.5 minute headways: 12 vehicles * 7.5 minutes/vehicle = 90 minutes.

Since the route is several minutes over 90 minutes right now, 12 vehicles are not enough to provide 7.5 minute headways. However, if we go to 8 minute headways then you get 12 * 8 = 96, which I think would work with current operating practices.

Based on observations from riding, I think it should be possible to get the round trip time down to 90 minutes. I’m pretty sure there is enough time wasted waiting for signals with insufficient priority or which expire too quickly, going excessively slowly in certain areas, and not achieving top speeds in other areas, that it should be possible to shave off those few extra minutes.

5 minute headways would require 18 vehicles in service assuming we can get the 90 minute roundtrip; at this point there should be 3 spares to maintain the same ratio for a total of 21 or 7 more than we currently have.

[MidTowner]

But I don't really see the need for five minutes- if the question is between ten minute and five minute frequency, yes, that's significant. But we should be at eight-minute headways now, and I can't really see the benefit of moving from seven or eight minutes to five, presuming zero capacity issues with the multiple car trains.

At seven minutes, a rider doesn't really have to check a schedule. Most of the benefits of increased frequency have been realized by that point.

Anything less than 5 mins I'm probably going to check a schedule, especially when I've got to wait outdoors and it's cold.

That said, right now I'd rather have increased off-peak service than 5 min peak service. If we could get to every 10 mins or better until 10pm Monday to Saturday I think that would be a huge improvement. Right now I often walk home and get my car if I'm going somewhere after work and will be out past the end of 10 minute service.

Everyone will have their own threshold for this, and maybe for Ion it's relatively low since (I imagine) many trips are very short in duration. I'll probably stop consulting the schedule at all once the frequency is increased, as promised, but I admit I may be an outlier. Maybe it really is five minutes, though I think it's probably somewhat higher for most people. You're right that the comfort of the wait makes a big difference.

I'm with you 100% on extending the 10-minute frequency until later. I would say earlier, too- waiting until 7:00am seems too late to me.

[eh-cun71]

Still no progress on the UW station bus terminal but there were surveyors on the construction site yesterday.

[KevinL]

I've heard there is a buried fiber optic cable that wasn't in the location they'd expected, which has managed to stop basically all work until they can redesign around it (as relocating it is too expensive?).

[Bob_McBob]

The construction delays for the UW bus terminal are incredible even by the region's usual low standards. It was supposed to be ready in fall 2017 in time for ION service to start in early 2018. They finally broke ground on July 2, 2019, and six months later there is barely anything to show for it.

[ijmorlan]

The construction delays for the UW bus terminal are incredible even by the region's usual low standards. It was supposed to be ready in fall 2017 in time for ION service to start in early 2018. They finally broke ground on July 2, 2019, and six months later there is barely anything to show for it.

They’re giving Bombardier a run for their money!

[ac3r]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but here's a peek at two LRVs running together, which they'll introduce in about 3-4 years. Not the best angle, unfortunately.

[taylortbb]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but here's a peek at two LRVs running together, which they'll introduce in about 3-4 years. Not the best angle, unfortunately.

The draft service plans from the project agreement had that timetable, but those are ancient and pretty irrelevant at this point. The region would have to be ordering vehicles now for that timetable to be realistic, and that's not something they've done. Actual changes will be based on ridership.

[panamaniac]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but here's a peek at two LRVs running together, which they'll introduce in about 3-4 years. Not the best angle, unfortunately.

The draft service plans from the project agreement had that timetable, but those are ancient and pretty irrelevant at this point. The region would have to be ordering vehicles now for that timetable to be realistic, and that's not something they've done. Actual changes will be based on ridership.

Speaking of which, are we likely to see much wrt ridership numbers prior to the first full year of operation?

[Bytor]

The draft service plans from the project agreement had that timetable, but those are ancient and pretty irrelevant at this point. The region would have to be ordering vehicles now for that timetable to be realistic, and that's not something they've done. Actual changes will be based on ridership.

Speaking of which, are we likely to see much wrt ridership numbers prior to the first full year of operation?

I have been bugging them about that since March 2019. Here is my latest tweet:

https://twitter.com/Bytor/status/1215721201735274496

Perhaps others could retweet and amplify?

I was using the numbers for this project: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...edit#gid=0