+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit (/showthread.php?tid=683)
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - Elmira Guy - 07-09-2017
(07-09-2017, 10:23 AM)DHLawrence Wrote: Except the reason everyone gives to combat NIMBYism is "We're not small towns anymore". Wanting to be a big city means not taking your ball and going home at the first opposition.
And not taking your ball and going home applies to both parties here.
It also means all parties working for the overall betterment of each city and the whole city, and these are not in conflict in this case. It also means cities need to stop acting petulant and trotting out constant claims of being treated unfairly.
Believe it or not, the region is not out to screw Cambridge.
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 07-09-2017
(07-09-2017, 10:21 AM)DHLawrence Wrote:(07-09-2017, 01:26 AM)Elmira Guy Wrote: I don't think anyone here was suggesting that. At least I hope not.There are at least five posts suggesting that on this page alone.
Last time I checked, the Region had suggested two routes into town; only one of those has faced opposition so far. If the Region's fine with it going along Maple Grove and nobody objects here, that's pretty much it. There's no further need to "come up with the best route", is there? I don't think it would be the best route, but it's already an option, and it gets the thing built.
So it was one route that was considered, but just because it was considered doesn't mean it's an option that should be built.
We should only build things that make sense to be built. Building it just because there is no opposition is a bad policy IMO.
While I have obviously not studied it to the degree the Region has, the Maple Grove route does not seem to support the reasons why the LRT is being built in the first place, namely intensification of existing built up areas to limit sprawl, and economic development. I could be wrong, but "build it where nobody objects" is basically a sprawl policy.
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - dunkalunk - 07-09-2017
I would argue that "getting the thing built" isn't enough of a reason to accept the Maple Grove route. ION Stage 2 needs to be more than just a development tool, for Hespeler Road, but also a way for people to move (reasonably) quickly from end to end of the region. If people want to get a good view of industrial parks and farmers' fields we already have a tourist train for that. If a bus travelling up Blair Road or Coronation Blvd is a faster way to get to K-W, who is going to end up actually using it?
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - mpd618 - 07-09-2017
(07-09-2017, 10:21 AM)DHLawrence Wrote: Last time I checked, the Region had suggested two routes into town; only one of those has faced opposition so far. If the Region's fine with it going along Maple Grove and nobody objects here, that's pretty much it.
I object. It's a long bypass that would get zero ridership, probably reduce ridership from further along the line (depending on relative overall speed of the options), and it has little transit-oriented development interest.
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 07-09-2017
(07-09-2017, 01:54 PM)mpd618 Wrote:(07-09-2017, 10:21 AM)DHLawrence Wrote: Last time I checked, the Region had suggested two routes into town; only one of those has faced opposition so far. If the Region's fine with it going along Maple Grove and nobody objects here, that's pretty much it.
I object. It's a long bypass that would get zero ridership, probably reduce ridership from further along the line (depending on relative overall speed of the options), and it has little transit-oriented development interest.
I agree. To get the full benefit of LRT, it needs to run through urban areas with additional intensification potential.
Otherwise we might as well run it to Elmira instead.
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - dunkalunk - 07-09-2017
We've got a tourist train for that.
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 07-09-2017
(07-09-2017, 02:07 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(07-09-2017, 01:54 PM)mpd618 Wrote: I object. It's a long bypass that would get zero ridership, probably reduce ridership from further along the line (depending on relative overall speed of the options), and it has little transit-oriented development interest.
I agree. To get the full benefit of LRT, it needs to run through urban areas with additional intensification potential.
Otherwise we might as well run it to Elmira instead.
Actually I happen to think that an Elmira route would make a lot of sense. Google Maps tells me that it is 12km from Northfield to “Elmira ON” which is very close to where the tracks end at Chemtura. At not quite 80km/h, a single vehicle shuttling back and forth could provide 20 minute headway. Since it would be a single vehicle, all that would be needed would be upgrade of the existing track and installation of OCS and single platforms, probably at the Market, in St. Jacobs, and one or two in Elmira. No signalling or switches (other than existing switches). Later an improvement to 10 minute headway could be had by installing a short two-track passing section halfway to Elmira.
https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/43.4993244,-80.5406508/Elmira,+ON/@43.5352687,-80.5952794,13z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x882bee8abb565883:0x78d491e7a5d030b2!2m2!1d-80.5629846!2d43.6004074!3e0?hl=en
Combined with a strategy to encourage development near the stations, this would be a significant improvement in transit linkage to Elmira. An apartment building built directly over a station platform would be effectively closer to UW for students than almost anything in Waterloo.
This is another reason they should have considered building a platform between the freight and southbound LRT tracks: it could be used by the tourist train until such time as upgrade to LRT is considered feasible.
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - Elmira Guy - 07-09-2017
(07-09-2017, 02:07 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Otherwise we might as well run it to Elmira instead.
Love the idea even though I realise you're being completely facetious. I would be happy to see GRT service to/from Elmira past 7 PM (4PM on Saturdays) and Sunday/holiday service but even that's years and years away.
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 07-09-2017
I wish the Waterloo Central Railway could buy the 3 O-Train Tallents that are for sale, and use those for the more Elmira Guy suggests. No upgrades required at all!
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 07-09-2017
(07-09-2017, 04:30 PM)Canard Wrote: I wish the Waterloo Central Railway could buy the 3 O-Train Tallents that are for sale, and use those for the more Elmira Guy suggests. No upgrades required at all!
While DMU service would be great in the Region, I don't think Elmira would be their best use. As appeared on Twitter earlier...
What if we used the existing rail spur between Galt - Preston - Hespeler - Gueph to run rapid transit? pic.twitter.com/hEZgFrN5O2
— Michael Druker (@m_druker) July 9, 2017
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - DHLawrence - 07-09-2017
(07-09-2017, 11:51 AM)Elmira Guy Wrote: Believe it or not, the region is not out to screw Cambridge.
And I'm not suggesting they are. I'm taking issue with the dismissive attitudes here. On this page alone we've gone from "Let's get the best route built" to "Screw 'em, let's send it to Elmira instead." And then everyone says Cambridge doesn't have any constructive ideas.
I'd rather it didn't go through Maple Grove either, it's clear that if no other reasonable suggestion comes along, that's what we're going to get. Obviously it was an option for a reason; not the best reason, but still a reason. If nobody wants that to happen, then a better solution is necessary. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" isn't an option.
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 07-09-2017
(07-09-2017, 07:47 PM)DHLawrence Wrote: And I'm not suggesting they are. I'm taking issue with the dismissive attitudes here. On this page alone we've gone from "Let's get the best route built" to "Screw 'em, let's send it to Elmira instead."
If you re-check my post, I think you will find out that that's not what I said.
But I did say that it makes no sense to build an (expensive) LRT and then avoid all urban areas on the route. There is simply little value in doing that, it would be the same as running an LRT to Elmira, through the countryside (where there are no NIMBYs but no riders, either).
Do you think running LRT through industrial areas is a good idea?
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - Pheidippides - 07-09-2017
What ever the route, the route needs to generates sufficient ridership to ensure LRT is successful and avoids giving the anti-LRT crowd any ammunition to kill future LRT in this community (and across the province).
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - DHLawrence - 07-10-2017
(07-09-2017, 08:44 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Do you think running LRT through industrial areas is a good idea?
Serving an area where large numbers of people work? Yes. It's no more or less "suburban" in its layout than the R&T Park.
RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - MacBerry - 07-10-2017
(07-05-2017, 02:53 PM)Markster Wrote: I think it should be noted that suggestion comes from Terry Mycyk, of the Stop the LRT Through Preston group.
Here's what I think he is describing:
I'm sure the MTO will have no concerns with the elevated-in-median LRT on the freshly rebuilt 401.
So the point of this proposal, shown on the map, thanks Mark, is to NOT go where any people live and spend more money because some people don't want LRT where people live. I always thought transit was for moving people not constructed or to be built in a population desert.
We should be using transit as a connecting infrastructure between the cities of Cambridge (Preston) and Kitchener not using the 401 as a divider. These protesting voices are the same as it was in Phase One when system being planned/built for the future of the Region. Unfortunately most people don't see beyond their backyards in this case. I don't remember any person or business taking action that the money paid for expropriated property was too small.
Lastly, pandering Preston and Cambridge politicians who want to be elected or re-elected to council jobs in 2018. Five+ years ago they were all complaining about being left out of the LRT development.