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. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 6 Vote(s) - 4.17 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit
It always irks me just a little when people talk about how bad an area is, and want to just wipe it away like they can click a button in SimCity. There are real people, with lives and families living in those homes, and you can’t just delete them and say “oh, they can move, because I don’t like the density.” /rant
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(10-12-2017, 08:59 PM)mpd618 Wrote:
(10-12-2017, 06:21 AM)MidTowner Wrote: That's the problem - the only density increase is essentially right on King Street, in the form of towers. Meanwhile just a block away will be completely unaffordable low density single family houses, instead of the missing middle density that could go there.

But that's not accurate. If you look at the plan, it's high density on King Street, scaling down to mid-rise behind King on either side. All density levels are included.
Reply
(10-13-2017, 04:34 AM)Canard Wrote: It always irks me just a little when people talk about how bad an area is, and want to just wipe it away like they can click a button in SimCity. There are real people, with lives and families living in those homes, and you can’t just delete them and say “oh, they can move, because I don’t like the density.” /rant

That's nothing a space monster and tornado can't take care of...
Reply
(10-13-2017, 06:10 AM)MidTowner Wrote: But that's not accurate. If you look at the plan, it's high density on King Street, scaling down to mid-rise behind King on either side. All density levels are included.

That's correct.  Although the amount of mid-rise is quite small.
Reply
Great point Canard. That is what I was trying to say a while back only to be jumped all over!
Reply
Right now though, I think(?) zoning is such that any midrise or gentle density off of King street is set to have to go through huge hurdles for even the simplest designs. Spreading that over the entirety of the units of 1Vic is reasonable, but if it's a midrise or rowhouses, these burdens really do guarantee that you can't have them being affordable.
Reply
There was a big to-do over the midrise built at 100 Walter street. I think the same thing will happen anytime someone tries to put up anything more than a tri-plex in these established neighbourhoods.
Reply
There's a big to-do over putting up three storey homes on Roger and Moore, which have...many three storey homes already. Obviously some of the concern is allegedly over the 6 storey units behind them (which one could not see from across the road due to the viewing angle limited by the three-storey proposed homes at roadside), and there aren't even any neighbours (sorry, exactly 1) whose properties would be anywhere near the units at the back, the whole site being A) just off King, where missing middle makes sense, and B) a <5min walk to an ION station. This is about as sensible and inoffensive as a proposal gets, and yet, here we are.
Reply
(10-13-2017, 10:34 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: There's a big to-do over putting up three storey homes on Roger and Moore, which have...many three storey homes already. Obviously some of the concern is allegedly over the 6 storey units behind them (which one could not see from across the road due to the viewing angle limited by the three-storey proposed homes at roadside), and there aren't even any neighbours (sorry, exactly 1) whose properties would be anywhere near the units at the back, the whole site being A) just off King, where missing middle makes sense, and B) a <5min walk to an ION station. This is about as sensible and inoffensive as a proposal gets, and yet, here we are.

It's pretty clear that there will be opposition to any change.  I have no solution.
Reply
I don't really see it as a problem in need of a solution (unless it's some kind of "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything"). Neighbourhood concerns/opposition to projects tend to amount to venting (and the project gets built more or less as proposed), or something more substantive, which tends to result in negotiation and compromise (though not necessarily in better development). I suppose that local politicians too beholden to neighbourhood associations could be a "problem", but that seems a problem of representative democracy and rather beyond my pay grade.
Reply
(10-12-2017, 07:38 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(10-12-2017, 07:20 PM)Canard Wrote: What may seem impossibly simple to us is likely impossibly impossible simply due to Transport Canada regulations and the fact that it's considered a "Railway" here, and those regulations trump any kind of logic we might come up with.

Re: the UW stop issue, that is a good point, but it is still not credible that they could not have either (a) had a full crossing immediately south of the station (all the way across both tracks) connecting to an east-side pathway or (b) spread the tracks apart far enough to allow the path to go down between them to the E5 crossing. Given the amount of earthmoving they did to build what was actually built the terrain now existing (which I think makes the idea of adding an east side path north of the E5 crossing difficult) is irrelevant.

I got curious and happened to be near the UW stop so I took a closer look. It turns out the north end of the stop is already exactly the way the south end should be — there is a concrete path extending south from the vehicle crossing to the platform. There is no separate crossing protection for the platform connection itself, just the lights and gates on either side of the two-track corridor. Also the tracks do not fully converge until well after they reach the E5 crossing so there should be enough space between them to do the exact same thing at the south end as at the north end. The only difference is that the path between the tracks would be about 3 times as long as the one at the north end.

Fun fact: the half-crossing at the south end of the platform has lights only, no gates.

So it looks like it could be fixed. The Fastrax machine and the switch machine would both need to be moved to the west side of the tracks from the middle. There is an OCS pole and a signal, but there are poles in the middle of the platform so those don’t look like problems either. I’ll be fascinated to see what happens once people start using the system.
Reply
Stop by on my way home on Oct 12 and did a quick look at a few places. Still got some work to be done to complete the construction phase. Now to get the LRV up and running.

Will have photos up in the next day or so.
https://youtu.be/dieIb90h3c0
https://youtu.be/meUpiEDhTpg
https://youtu.be/89LqZ2rCcao
Reply
Someone was asking about what route I take to cycle along the entire LRT line; I thought I'd share here, too.  Here's approximately the route I usually take:

https://goo.gl/maps/YyDGtDgv8Nk

   

The only spots that are a little hairy are (from South to North):
  • Courtland, between where the Hydro Right-of-Way ends, and Hayward - I typically just go along Traynor here, or I walk my bike on the sidewalk
  • The Mill/Ottawa interface is terrible - be really careful, here
  • Victoria, between Charles and King - I generally cheat and ride up the sidewalk here for a block  Blush  Sorry
  • King, between Northfield and Conestoga - the MUT isn't finished on the West side, but it's certainly passable (my bikes aren't true mountain bikes, but it's not so rough that it's impossible)

I'm also curious as this says 17 km, not 19 km - I guess they count all the track separately in the split sections?! Huh
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(10-14-2017, 09:49 AM)Canard Wrote: I'm also curious as this says 17 km, not 19 km - I guess they count all the track separately in the split sections?!  Huh

Ha! You have just unearthed a scandal!
I guess so! I'll have to revise my mental thought of how long the system is.
Reply
(10-14-2017, 10:15 AM)Markster Wrote:
(10-14-2017, 09:49 AM)Canard Wrote: I'm also curious as this says 17 km, not 19 km - I guess they count all the track separately in the split sections?!  Huh

Ha! You have just unearthed a scandal!
I guess so! I'll have to revise my mental thought of how long the system is.

Maybe the 19km figure includes all the sidings in the OMSF?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)