ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[BuildingScout]

might never happen but it's still worth trying to keep people from walking on the tracks.

and the only way to achieve this is a six foot fence?

[panamaniac]

If GrandLinq is to build a fence, it would seem simple enough for them to inform the City of Waterloo of what they plan to do under the contract and what it will cost. If the City wants something better, it would be a good opportunity for them to pay the additional cost of something more esthetically pleasing, if it's required. Problem solved.

[clasher]

might never happen but it's still worth trying to keep people from walking on the tracks.

and the only way to achieve this is a six foot fence?

Well a couple chains strung along steel posts aren't going to do the trick. Four foot iron picket fences are pretty easy to hop too so I can understand why safety people would recommend a 6 foot fence since there are less people that are going to try and climb over it. Since the only casuality of building a six foot fence would be a ruined view I am not sure why it is such a big deal, I mean there's already barb-wire chain link fence on the other side of this trail and it's pretty easy to plant some bushes and vines along that kind of fence to soften the "industrial" feel of such installations. Probably cheaper than building a really fancy wrought-iron style fence. The zoo fence looks okay when it's broken up with some shrubs and whatnot. Most people probably don't even notice it.

The rail industry gets a lot of flack every time someone is killed by a train so I can understand why they would recommend a bigger fence along a really busy pedestrian trail beside a busy section of track.

[BuildingScout]

Well a couple chains strung along steel posts aren't going to do the trick. Four foot iron picket fences are pretty easy to hop too so I can understand why safety people would recommend a 6 foot fence since there are less people that are going to try and climb over it. Since the only casuality of building a six foot fence would be a ruined view I am not sure why it is such a big deal, I mean there's already barb-wire chain link fence on the other side of this trail and it's pretty easy to plant some bushes and vines along that kind of fence to soften the "industrial" feel of such installations. Probably cheaper than building a really fancy wrought-iron style fence. The zoo fence looks okay when it's broken up with some shrubs and whatnot. Most people probably don't even notice it.

The rail industry gets a lot of flack every time someone is killed by a train so I can understand why they would recommend a bigger fence along a really busy pedestrian trail beside a busy section of track.

As I said, I think a six foot fence would be more dangerous not less, since people can still enter the tracks at pedestrian crossings and now they would be trapped if they start walking inside the fence.

Being no good reason to cross to the other side, I fail to see why ball and chain wouldn't suffice. I would have a very different opinion if there were large number of people on both sides. They might as well build a fence to keep polar bears out, since the likelihood of someone crossing the tracks halfway in Waterloo park is about to the same.

[curious_look]

and the only way to achieve this is a six foot fence?

Well a couple chains strung along steel posts aren't going to do the trick. Four foot iron picket fences are pretty easy to hop too so I can understand why safety people would recommend a 6 foot fence since there are less people that are going to try and climb over it. Since the only casuality of building a six foot fence would be a ruined view I am not sure why it is such a big deal, I mean there's already barb-wire chain link fence on the other side of this trail and it's pretty easy to plant some bushes and vines along that kind of fence to soften the "industrial" feel of such installations. Probably cheaper than building a really fancy wrought-iron style fence. The zoo fence looks okay when it's broken up with some shrubs and whatnot. Most people probably don't even notice it.

The rail industry gets a lot of flack every time someone is killed by a train so I can understand why they would recommend a bigger fence along a really busy pedestrian trail beside a busy section of track.

What about animals living in the park? They need to cross the tracks too, and their crossing patterns/locations probably don't line up with humans'. Depending on the type of fence, they could be pretty much blocked off. 

[jamincan]

I actually agree with BuildingScout that a 6-foot chain-link fence would actually be a safety issue as it is a barrier in both directions. At the same time, some sort of barrier is appropriate; people, and kids in particular, seem to like walking on rail road tracks. Something to do with stepping on the ties and balancing on the rails I guess. I'd suggest a 3-foot or so hedge. High enough to be unattractive to cross, but not firm enough to be a safety or wildlife issue. Additionally, because it is a soft barrier, the other side doesn't become forbidden space, which is its own sort of draw (drunken bets and that sort of thing).

[Canard]

I am terrified that one day Bacon and Eggs might escape and run onto the tracks. Better build an enclosed tunnel to protect them.

Seriously, I got so much flack for suggesting monorail on the basis of "destroyed view", "unfavourable visual intrusion", etc. But somehow a 6' chainlink fence and mess of overhead catenary is ok?

No one has been able yet to say WHY it is ok in other parts of the line, or on other systems in Canada, why it can operate unprotected. The only logical suggestion I've read so far is that CN wants to upgrade this stretch. But even that is kind of bunk because there aren't fences along most railways anyway. You use common sense. Please don't kid yourself that nobody will get hit. It's a matter of when, not if. Again, not to shed doom and gloom, but it's a fact that with LRT systems that are not grade separated (read: elevated or underground), you have collisions and fatalities. I don't wish it on anyone, but just search for "LRT Crash" on YouTube or Google and watch what comes up. It comes with the technology choice, I'm afraid. One that would have been avoided with VAL/ICTS/Monorail/Etc.

Absolutely agreed on dense hedge - again, this is used elsewhere successfully.

[ookpik]

I don't understand why it's a hard pill to swallow. From CN/TC's perspective people are still getting killed by trains, even on LRT systems in this country.

If CN is so concerned for our safety why isn't there already a 6' chain link fence to protect us from their current train traffic? Why does CN expect the region to pay to protect us from them?

[BuildingScout]

A bigger problem than people walking on the tracks will be cars turning into the LRT path. Intersections with streets will require full length level crossing barriers. Traffic lights won't be enough: people will still turn into the path of the oncoming LRT.

What is it with the obsession with monorails? why exactly is one rail better than two? Outside of the sci-fi random association with them there isn't much reason to go for single rails, which is why to this date they are still so rare.

[Canard]

Because the guideway width is significantly less (in the case of supported systems, aka ALWEG-style). It is a small overhead structure, instead of a massive concrete overhead arrangement, which looks like a traffic overpass.



...and before anyone says it, this system has 3 lines, 25 km of guideway, moves 150,000 people per day and services an area the size of Kitchener.

We got Light Rail because one of the requirements in the technology selection matrix made up by the region was Step on, Step off. So that narrows it to Bus and LRT. Everything else was eliminated without further serious consideration.

I would propose that you have never riden a monorail, or any other form of automated guideway transit, or an elevated system? If you have, the merit is obvious. It's the superior choice all around.

At any rate, what's done is done. I love this project too much to drag up the past!

[zanate]

I believe staff are currently working on this fencing issue. I also heard that yes, it's Transport Canada who decided this, but my guess is some of the details in the media are probably a bit off. For instance, the prevailing assumption that the requirement is 6'. (I think it's the reporting that the "current construction fence will stay" and that fence is about 6' that may be causing some confusion.)

That said, there's not a lot of other detail forthcoming. I gathered that there's a balance of liability being weighed. If the operator assumes all liability along this corridor, they'll want to go with TC's recommendation. If the region wants something less, they'll probably have to take on liability.

One of the things that surprised me was that GrandLinq was looking to run the train up to 70km/h through this corridor. I didn't think that was likely given the distance between stations (and Seagram Drive station right in the middle) but I guess these vehicles can accelerate pretty well.

I think a speed limit could be negotiated, but it would require redefining the service standard. And have an impact on service hours. Maybe other knock-on effects.

[ookpik]

moves 150,000 people per day and services an area the size of Kitchener

I have to respond to that well, old canard

Monorails vs LRT aside, the situation and circumstances between transit use at Disney and in municipalities like K-W, is much different.
1) The users are mostly visitors, not residents. Many have no car at Disney. Indeed Disney encourages them not to bring or rent cars with free transit, including even the airport shuttle from MCO.
2) They're on vacation, not commuting to work. The monorail is arguably an attraction in itself.
3) The cost of using the monorail (and all Disney transit) is free. Parking at Disney parks is US$17/day.
4) There's little in-between stations so there's less inconvenience in using transit, i.e. it's point-to-point.
5) It's probably faster than driving, especially if you're also staying at a Disney hotel, because there's no time wasted in parking lots.

[clasher]

It would be possible to have a fence that closes the track off at the pedestrian crossings if that is an issue. I also think keeping animals off the tracks is a good thing to do, if a deer wanders on the track they might have to halt service. Personally I think that the main rail corridor should be fenced off too. Especially if they end up bringing faster GO trains through. There's a stretch in Burlington that is supposed to be getting fenced off because of a number of pedestrian fatalities at that location.

[Canard]

You are talking about these possibilities of things "wandering onto the tracks" like it's some issue specific to Kitchener-Waterloo and somehow magically doesn't occur anywhere else.  How many dozens (hundreds!) of cities around the world have Light Rail systems?  Do they all have 6' fences running the length of the corridors?  No!  It's a non-issue.  You can stand at a platform edge on any subway system in the world (without platform screen doors, which is the majority of them) and stand as close as you want from a train blasting into the station on a crowded platform at 80 km/h.  Millions of people do this every day.  You can stick your face in the infeed comb of an escalator if you want but nobody.  You can jump in front of a bus for kicks if you so desire.  Lick an electrical outlet.  This is ridiculous.  If we guarded every potential hazard that existed anywhere, the world would be completely locked out from anyone going anywhere or doing anything.

[Pheidippides]

I suspect that the stretch between Columbia and Seagram, even if it has slower speeds, will be a more dangerous stretch just due to the higher numbers of people, a larger majority of whom often have their eyeballs glued to their phones, their ears over-powered by headphones, and common sense often over-powered by alcohol. So why no fences there? It would be good to see the actual text of the ruling to understand the thinking behind it.