ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Pheidippides]

Are these new rapid transit vehicles in the regional budget new LRVs in 2022?

"Rapid Transit Project Expansion Future Expansion Vehicles $15,450,000"

That would be about 3 LRVs with inflation? Or maybe 2 LRVs and some parts. Would seem to fit with the now shifted baseline service schedule calling for 16 LRVs in 2021.

Better order them now!

[KevinL]

aBRT falls under the 'rapid transit' umbrella, so maybe it's the Ion buses between Fairway and Ainslie?

[trainspotter139]

aBRT falls under the 'rapid transit' umbrella, so maybe it's the Ion buses between Fairway and Ainslie?

No those vehicles are coming early 2018. The budgeted items will likely be for the additional LRVs required for the service plan.

[DHLawrence]

I thought we already had the aBRT buses.

[Canard]

I think we're getting "fancy" ones, like the VIVA ones in Toronto. IIRC they're more like coach busses than city busses.

[Pheidippides]

Here is one signal to watch for in anticipation the launch date for Ion.

According to the budget, the region's Service First Call Centre (SFCC) is anticipating more calls with the launch of Ion so more staff will be needed. The estimate they need hire staff "approximately 3 months before service start to allow time for necessary training. Timing of hiring new staff will be coordinated with anticipated start of service and will be adjusted if necessary."


So when you see those job postings on the region's website that one signal we are about 3 months from launch.

[Pheidippides]

Noticed in the budget $400,000 for something called "ION Pedestrian Crossing ‐ Traynor Trail in 2019.

Also, there is a line for $50,000 in 2020 called "Feasibility Study ‐ Mill Station to Hayward, Rail Corridor. Any ideas what that might be about?

[Canard]

Maybe a MUT alongside the tracks for that stretch? That would be awesome!!

That’s fantastic about the Traynor crossing, but the timing is not so fantastic.

PS - how do you find all these nuggets of information burried so deep in these documents?! Do you read every one?

[KevinL]

Also, there is a line for $50,000 in 2020 called "Feasibility Study ‐ Mill Station to Hayward, Rail Corridor. Any ideas what that might be about?

Maybe a MUT alongside the tracks for that stretch? That would be awesome!!

Undoubtedly - but how would a trail cross under the Parkway? The existing underpasses are very strictly rail-only...

[ijmorlan]

Also, there is a line for $50,000 in 2020 called "Feasibility Study ‐ Mill Station to Hayward, Rail Corridor. Any ideas what that might be about?

Maybe a MUT alongside the tracks for that stretch? That would be awesome!!

Undoubtedly - but how would a trail cross under the Parkway? The existing underpasses are very strictly rail-only...

Yet another planning screw-up. The LRT underpass could easily have been made 4m wider to allow the path to go through there, at hardly any additional expense. Actually I wouldn’t be surprised to find it’s actually wide enough as built that one could walk through perfectly safely, just a bit closer to the tracks than is generally preferred.

[Canard]

That’s really unfair. I wouldn’t call it a screw up. How do you know that Trasport Canada would be okay with a 1 m buffer between LRV’s rocketing along under ATC at 70-80 km/h next to your 3 m MUT?

[ijmorlan]

I wouldn’t call it a screw up. How do you know that Trasport Canada would be okay with a 1 m buffer between LRV’s rocketing along under ATC at 70-80 km/h next to your 3 m MUT?

They’re fine with a sidewalk next to a four-lane road through a bridge. 1m buffer? More like 30cm, and from traffic which is just a moment’s inattention from the driver away from driving up onto the sidewalk, and which doesn’t reliably obey the speed limit.

But even if we restrict ourselves to LRT comparisons, there are already lots of areas of the LRT where the proposed level of separation exists — try all those sidewalks with fences along Hayward and Courtland. The run through the tunnel could be exactly like those areas.

And even ignoring all that, the point is that if the tunnel had been made a little bit wider there would have been space for a MUT. I think this remains true even if we assume unreasonable (while still plausible) requirements for separation between the trail and the LRT. I don’t think they’re going to repeat the process of building a tunnel now, just for a MUT.

On a related note, the crossing of the tracks that used to exist immediately south of the expressway has been fenced off. So re-opening that would also be part of what should happen in that area, but without a proper route under the expressway the crossing isn’t really very useful.

[Canard]

All I’m saying is you’re making a lot of assumptions that you don’t actually know the answer to, and as a result, blaming the project team, and it’s not fair. Your comparisons about sidewalks and roads are not valid because we’re talking about two different governing bodies with totally different rulesets.

[trainspotter139]

All I’m saying is you’re making a lot of assumptions that you don’t actually know the answer to, and as a result, blaming the project team, and it’s not fair. Your comparisons about sidewalks and roads are not valid because we’re talking about two different governing bodies with totally different rulesets.

Not to mention these are two very different vehicles with different braking capabilities and different amounts of momentum and inertia.

[ijmorlan]

All I’m saying is you’re making a lot of assumptions that you don’t actually know the answer to, and as a result, blaming the project team, and it’s not fair. Your comparisons about sidewalks and roads are not valid because we’re talking about two different governing bodies with totally different rulesets.

Actually I’m blaming our planners, not the LRT project team itself.

I’m well aware that there is a double standard where anything involving roads is allowed to be wildly unsafe.

But I’m confused why you don’t think my closer comparison between the hypothetical path beside the tracks through the tunnel and the actual path beside the tracks along Hayward and Courtland is valid. It’s the same LRT line running in the same part of town and with the same separate-from-the-road style of design. I’m not even comparing to the on-street embedded segments of LRT.

I believe that prudent planning would have dictated building the LRT tunnel enough wider to allow a MUT to be run through it next to the tracks, and based on comparisons with nearly sections of the LRT I believe that “enough wider” is not an enormous amount of additional width.