(10-07-2022, 11:16 AM)ac3r Wrote: Real greenery is a benefit though. It provides drainage, encourages insects and lessens the heat island effect. There may be fake grass that can also achieve that but real grass will always be superior.

(10-07-2022, 07:52 PM)bravado Wrote: I think there’s a real argument to be made for a green track - not even necessarily grass, just something green and alive. Clover? Bee-friendly grasses?

(10-10-2022, 02:46 PM)KevinL Wrote:

(10-07-2022, 07:52 PM)bravado Wrote: I think there’s a real argument to be made for a green track - not even necessarily grass, just something green and alive. Clover? Bee-friendly grasses?

Sedum works well on green roofs, and I see from Wikipedia it's been used this way too.

(03-05-2023, 04:41 PM)ac3r Wrote: I don't know how I missed this - or maybe I've just forgotten about this news as it's from 2022 - but the region does not expect construction of the Cambridge line to begin until 2028 and be operational by 2032 (though I'm sure that target would not be met like last time). Really?! That's disappointing news, particularly for residents of Cambridge since they had to hand over a lot of money to fund it in Kitchener and Waterloo.

As usual and true to the meme of Cambridge being awful, they get shafted and left behind once again.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/ion-lrt-phase-2-to-cambridge-update-1.6553870

(03-07-2023, 05:19 PM)ac3r Wrote: Cambridge is just like: Yeah, we're here, can you not bother us unless it's really important? We're fine the way we are.

(03-10-2023, 06:10 PM)Bytor Wrote: Prior to the pandemic at the rate that ridership on ION aBRT, later route 302 was going, 2028 would have been the first year that it would have been high enough for it to have crossed the threshold where LRT operating costs per ride are finally lower than a bus route for the same number of people. Roughly 7,000 per day on average.

2032 would have been 10,000/day, the point where the divergence in costs becomes apparent and bus routes start to struggle as they begin to need 10 minute headways or better to not be overly crowded.

As such, 2028 was a reasonable earliest point for Stage 2 construction to start, and 2032 a reasonable goal for start of service.

While the increased ridership in the latter half of 2019 was huge, even going by GRT's historical 5-7% yearly average growth, 30% growth wasn't something that would have been sustained, but because the pandemic hit we don't know if it would have returned to 7% or settled at something higher. If it went back to 7% yearly growth, which is still incredible, that only pushes forward the 7,000 and 10,000 daily riders as mentioned above by a year, 2027 and 2031, and only barely.

So 2028/2032 was still a reasonable hypothetical time frame.

Far more concerning, in my personal opinion, is that the RMoW has steadfastly and consistently refused to give any sort of targets or metrics that would start the processes for Stage 2 in earnest. Not yet having funding is irrelevant, because such targets could be worded like "If funding has been secured, then at 5,000 daily riders we order the extra trams, at 6,000 we start the RFQ process, …" and so on.

As we all know, the Region waited excessively late with the relevant bus routes having serious issues for many years before the contract was finally awarded. ION could have easily had a decade of service before the pandemic, based on ridership alone. I fear the Region will do a similar thing for Stage 2.

(03-12-2023, 10:04 PM)KevinL Wrote: Yeah, it's like the old phrase 'don't measure the need for a bridge by counting the number of people swimming across the river'. There could be a LOT of latent demand unlocked.