ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[timc]

Just out of curiousity, have the buses for the BRT been decided yet?

Yes. They will be the existing bus fleet.

Also, it's aBRT, not BRT.

[D40LF]

Word on the street is that the iXpress will simply be realigned to serve the new aBRT stops. No "ION buses" until 2017.

[tomh009]

Just out of curiousity, have the buses for the BRT been decided yet?  I'd love to see something modern as opposed to just a differently branded bus.

That design (or maybe it's the colour scheme?) doesn't really do it for me.  How about something more retro? 

[Waterlooer]

Does anyone know when University Ave is expected to be closed for the rail replacement for ION?

[Canard]

Those are hideous.  NOVA LFS Artic, please!



Yes, University Ave. will be closed at some point to do the tracks at the crossing, probably quite soon.

[Chris]

Those are hideous.  NOVA LFS Artic, please!

I'd love to see the new buses go high instead of long. I'm not sure if the infrastructure around town supports double decker height and the increased loading and unloading times would upset impatient drivers but the smaller footprint is appealing.

[chutten]

I'd love to see the new buses go high instead of long. I'm not sure if the infrastructure around town supports double decker height and the increased loading and unloading times would upset impatient drivers but the smaller footprint is appealing.

The LRT's wiring (which seems to be consistently omitted from every rendering I've seen of the system) will complicate using double-decker buses on any routes that cross the tracks. Those routes would be the most likely to be the high-volume routes, too.

I was wrong. Many designs of double-decker buses could fit under the overhead catenaries (citations in my newer post)

[mpd618]

The LRT's wiring (which seems to be consistently omitted from every rendering I've seen of the system) will complicate using double-decker buses on any routes that cross the tracks. Those routes would be the most likely to be the high-volume routes, too.

Citation please. I do not believe this is true.

[Viewfromthe42]

It also seems foolish to take the supposed-to-be-densest corridor, and give it the worst unload/load/dwell times. This is much less of an issue with suburban feeders which expect to see small numbers loading at numerous stops, and then everyone unloading at the final point (see Tunney's Pasture, Ottawa express buses). Having multiple load/unload points is great for corridor runners (see the main transitway buses, Ottawa, where it takes longer to load ten people at the front than it does 50 at the back).

[Chris]

I'd love to see the new buses go high instead of long. I'm not sure if the infrastructure around town supports double decker height and the increased loading and unloading times would upset impatient drivers but the smaller footprint is appealing.

The LRT's wiring (which seems to be consistently omitted from every rendering I've seen of the system) will complicate using double-decker buses on any routes that cross the tracks. Those routes would be the most likely to be the high-volume routes, too.

Thanks.

I guess that may affect the GO buses running out of the universities as well.

[chutten]

The LRT's wiring (which seems to be consistently omitted from every rendering I've seen of the system) will complicate using double-decker buses on any routes that cross the tracks. Those routes would be the most likely to be the high-volume routes, too.

Citation please. I do not believe this is true.

Which part? That there will be wires?

You are correct, though, that I am in error. In a place like Japan where the maximum height of any vehicle is 3.8m, you get double-decker buses that would fit comfortably under the minimal height of a traffic-accessible overhead catenary at 5.2m.

I will edit my original post to show how much of a fool I've made of myself.

[chutten]

The LRT's wiring (which seems to be consistently omitted from every rendering I've seen of the system) will complicate using double-decker buses on any routes that cross the tracks. Those routes would be the most likely to be the high-volume routes, too.

Thanks.

I guess that may affect the GO buses running out of the universities as well.

Oh, and specifically correcting myself here, the Go double-deckers have a max height of 4.3m which offers clearance underneath the IEE-recommended overhead catenary minimum height of 5.2m.

[BuildingScout]

The Columbia St. crossing is open now.

I know I'm playing armchair quarterback here, but it is hard to see where three weeks of work went here. If the region had a record of timely completions, I would say nothing, but given that RoW seems to be slow central (ask 144 Park) I'll put it out there. Why three weeks on a simple double crossing with culvert?

[Markster]

The Columbia St crossing isn't done yet; it's open to cars, but the Laurel Trail is still closed, and they still need to pour all the sidewalks.

[mpd618]

You are correct, though, that I am in error. In a place like Japan where the maximum height of any vehicle is 3.8m, you get double-decker buses that would fit comfortably under the minimal height of a traffic-accessible overhead catenary at 5.2m.

Appreciate the correction! As far as I know, GO's new double-deckers can go anywhere that transport trucks can, and it would be pretty crazy if the catenary were low enough to affect either.

Seconding Viewfromthe42's point about load/unload times being crucial on any main line that isn't express. And iXpress-type routes are limited-stop rather than express: you expect lots of people getting in and out at many stops along the route. We don't really have any routes for which double-deckers would make sense, I think.