ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Printable Version +- 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 - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit (/showthread.php?tid=14) Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
|
RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 11-22-2017 (11-22-2017, 11:31 AM)Markster Wrote: It's the prospect of doubled-up trains justifying 30 minute frequency in the evenings that grinds my gears. Thisssssssssssssss s s s s s! I will always say that, given an equal hourly capacity, little trains at high frequency > big trains at low frequency. This is at the core of VAL and ICTS (and tramways, too, which can operate trains close together), and part of why I love them so much. (I went to go insert a video I think I've shared before, showing sub-minute headways on the Lille VAL, but I think it's been removed from YouTube.) RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 11-22-2017 (11-22-2017, 11:31 AM)Markster Wrote:(11-22-2017, 10:26 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I really hate that argument. If there's justification for running a train every 3 minutes, then those people *should* have priority over traffic. If those people were instead in cars, then you'd really see traffic disruption. My understanding is that our LRT will have full priority, i.e., will not normally encounter a stop signal. If this is true, then line management is not a problem — it’s the same as with full isolation. Given that, 3 minute service just means the traffic light must give a green to the LRT every 3 minutes in each direction, meaning the LRT significantly constrains the overall traffic light cycle. Because an LRV doesn’t take very long to clear the intersection, even 3 minute service will still leave lots of time for the cross street. If some extra traffic congestion results, that is really irrelevant, as pointed out — 3 minute service would be provided because 3600 people per hour are taking the LRT. It would be absurd to make those 3600 people wait for a few people in private cars. How many cars can fit through Erb and Caroline in an hour anyway? And in a situation where we had that level of transit ridership, I think having reserved lanes for buses on the cross streets should be achievable. Having said all that, I’m OK with 5 minute frequency. But it really would be absurd to use 2-car trains to allow 30 minute instead of 15 minute service. It doesn’t make sense to spend as much on capital as it takes to build an LRT and then not fund operations properly. I wonder when automatic driving will be considered reliable enough to run an LRV in or near traffic? It’s a way easier problem than the general automatic driving problem. That would allow higher frequency without increasing labour costs. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinT - 11-22-2017 (11-22-2017, 09:33 AM)jeffster Wrote: I think the issue with every 5 minutes or 3 minutes is disruption of traffic. If you think of the Courtland(Fairway) rail crossing, you'd basically see a train every 90 seconds (1 in either direction every 3 minutes). I think 7 minutes is good for our region. Cars block cars every 90 seconds all over the city, its called traffic lights. If running a train every 3 minutes is justified then that means there's a helluvalot of people on those trains (if there weren't, then there'd be no reason to run them so often). How is it that its okay for a few cars carrying 1.3 people each to block other cars every 90 seconds, but if a single train with 60 to 120 people in it blocks some cars it's a disruption? The self-entitled mindset of car drivers really needs to change... RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 11-22-2017 @ijmorlan: No city has attempted a Light Rail/Tramway system in an urban environment with crossings and so on automatically. Alstom has done some automated yard-movement stuff in Paris on an experimental basis, but that’s it. There’s no need - headways can be as close as busses, almost, without automation. There is only a gain in big trains with large stopping distances. I think you are incorrectly extrapolating what is happening in Toronto on the subway to our LRT. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 11-22-2017 (11-22-2017, 03:25 PM)Canard Wrote: @ijmorlan: No city has attempted a Light Rail/Tramway system in an urban environment with crossings and so on automatically. Alstom has done some automated yard-movement stuff in Paris on an experimental basis, but that’s it. I’m not extrapolating from Toronto. I’m extrapolating from the self-driving car news we see everywhere. If self-driving cars are really possible, then self-driving LRVs, including in mixed traffic, are definitely possible. While it wouldn’t be the best design, simply hooking up the self-driving car’s collision-avoidance system to the emergency brake and making it otherwise exactly like existing ATO systems would work as long as there was a way to disengage the emergency brake when the hazard condition no longer exists. The fact that ATO is still seen as absolutely requiring total right-of-way separation is one of the reasons why I am skeptical about self-driving cars. But on the other hand, we see things like Uber placing an order for thousands of cars intended to be modified to be self-driving. News like that feels like more than a publicity stunt. So overall, I don’t feel confident in my ability to predict where the self-driving car story is going. But it is definitely much easier to make a self-driving LRT than a self-driving car. And it does matter because labour is a significant cost. The only reason somebody would even suggest running 2-car trains every 30 minutes instead of single cars every 15 minutes is to save on labour. When the numbers get down to shorter headways then other issues such as line management and how often the crossings trigger come into play but at wider headways the only benefit of longer trains is reduced labour costs. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 11-22-2017 (11-22-2017, 06:47 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: ... ATO requirements have zero to do with technology, and everything to do with policy, disregard them entirely in terms of the technological possibilities of self driving cars. Self driving car technology is certainly within the realm of feasibility in the next 5-10 years minimum. Uber is definitely pulling a stunt, but looking at Google's (Waymo I guess) self driving car, it is very very good, I suspect already better than human drivers. But the actual question is where the policy for self driving cars will go. Hopefully, it will keep safety as a top priority, but given the amount of money involved (literally tens of millions of jobs in the US alone), there's a huge amount of interest in this technology, and money makes the world go round. Which is the actual issue facing society related to self driving cars, what will millions (at least) of out of work drivers do. That's my 2c anyway. Maybe they can drive LRT vehicles still governed by massively out of date regulations. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - kidgibnick - 11-23-2017 World’s first "smart train" with virtual tracks launched in Hunan, China. Essentially, it's a guided, driverless, electric-bus disguised as a tram. Would have less disruptive than the ION too https://youtu.be/Lqgvk6LWUDk https://youtu.be/2i3aVMKBgFU RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 11-23-2017 ...and 20 years behind the game. Has anyone spotted any LRV action along the Test Track or OMSF in the past week or so? It’s been awfully quiet. Makes you wonder, eh? RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 11-23-2017 (11-23-2017, 05:36 AM)kidgibnick Wrote: World’s first "smart train" with virtual tracks launched in Hunan, China. Essentially, it's a guided, driverless, electric-bus disguised as a tram. Would have less disruptive than the ION too Why do you think it would be less disruptive than the construction we experienced? RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 11-23-2017 Can we please also discuss the Straddlebus? Because it would fit right in with where this is heading. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 11-23-2017 (11-23-2017, 09:16 AM)Canard Wrote: Can we please also discuss the Straddlebus? Because it would fit right in with where this is heading. Aerobus FTW! RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 11-23-2017 It's also drifting off topic - we already have a transit vehicles thread. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 11-23-2017 Yup, and some good news coming up! RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - timio - 11-23-2017 ...Which you could share as you are a public citizen, not bound by confidentiality clauses... Or continue to be coy and let people speculate about the hover buses the Region has budgeted for in fiscal year 2059. Just saying... RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - DHLawrence - 11-23-2017 Aww, I was hoping for catbuses! |