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 - danbrotherston - 07-15-2018 (07-15-2018, 03:24 PM)jeffster Wrote: I think what would have been really great along here would have been a stop close to the Food Basics (so almost behind Partsource). That's one thing I didn't understand, as there aren't a lot of stops, at least in Kitchener, close to any supermarkets. The sidewalk off Balfour Crescent (the one across from Michaels) is an official access from the neighbourhood into the trail, it is the only one I see, but there could be others. But in the context when this was constructed, this area was intended to be publicly accessible but it was intended as a recreational area. 'Proper' people would never walk to the businesses in behind, they would get in their cars and drive. Welcome to the 1950s and upwards planning...its only recently that we've thought about changing this, but even today, we suck at pedestrian infra in new neighbourhoods. It was simply good luck that this recreational facility backed onto businesses that people wanted to walk too, and thus were able to trespass/unofficially have access too those businesses. This particular case is striking because access that used to exist has been lost, but more generally, we need to figure out a way to retrofit better access into our neighbourhoods across the city. Nobody is even talking about this, and on the rarest of cases when we actually try, neighbourhoods oppose it...because...well I don't have a better explanation than simple fear of change...any change. As for the LRT, a stop near Traynor park probably could have been good. There's a lot of space for redevelopment, and connecting down Manitou would have been useful as well. There could have been a stop in the business park north of Hayward, as there's lot of land for development and more than a few of existing jobs there. Plus, better access across Courtland would have connected too a fair bit of housing there as well. For that matter, the stop at Conestoga could have been located along Kingsway and been substantially closer to a lot of housing there. I hope that the planning staff ran through these possibilities and modelled them and found they weren't worth the cost of the added trip times. Either way though, the Courtland/Fairway corridor does seem to be one of the more poorly planned corridors for pedestrian access--and that's in a project which hasn't shown they've planned well for it. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - jeffster - 07-15-2018 Oh, OK. I kind of thought that the sidewalk looked "official", but I really thought it was a homeowner that had done this. This kind of changes some of my thoughts; if they already had an official sidewalk going out to the hydro corridor, then obviously the trespassing wasn't discouraged, rather, it seemed to have been endorsed a little bit. Which makes me think that more of those in charge must have been aware of what the hydro corridor was being used for. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 07-15-2018 (07-15-2018, 04:21 PM)jeffster Wrote: ...they already had an official sidewalk going out to the hydro corridor, then obviously the trespassing wasn't discouraged, rather, it seemed to have been endorsed a little bit. Which makes me think that more of those in charge must have been aware of what the hydro corridor was being used for. The trespassing wasn't in the hydro corridor itself - that was open to the public like most existing hydro corridors are. The trespass happened when someone stepped from the corridor onto a business' property. True, this was usually to an open parking area, and often tacitly encouraged; but never official, and never onto public land. And that was the case along the entire length of Fairway from Manitou to Wilson. That's the distinction we have to resolve; any crossing built now must be to a public path (which does not yet exist), that must have land purchased or expropriated in order to exist. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 07-15-2018 In more positive news, the new LRVs have been spotted near the train station. https://twitter.com/sjaybrown/status/1018559599090102272 RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Markster - 07-15-2018 (07-15-2018, 04:48 PM)KevinL Wrote: any crossing built now must be to a public path (which does not yet exist), that must have land purchased or expropriated in order to exist. Or an easement granting a right-of-way to the crossing. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - bgb_ca - 07-15-2018 (07-15-2018, 04:49 PM)KevinL Wrote: In more positive news, the new LRVs have been spotted near the train station. I'm guessing it's going up the spur on tomorrow night's chem train? RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Pheidippides - 07-15-2018 (07-15-2018, 11:41 AM)jeffster Wrote: 3) The desire to come close to budget. I would give a lot of weight to this suggestion. We had a budget for a barebones system that also had operational constraints (46min end-to-end?) and some things just had to go to make sure the system met all the parameters. I do think that not consulting enough with those affected the most also contributed. I was hoping for some formal "lessons learned" to be published before we got too far along in phase 2 so this kind of thing would be less likely to happen, but it is almost too late now. Hopefully, someone is thinking about all the voices they haven't heard from in the phase 2 consultations. They are certainly hearing from the vocal and organized groups enough; hopefully not to the detriment of another less vocal group (for whatever reasons). RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - darts - 07-15-2018 For phase 2 I cant remember if it is still behind dundas street but there is some obvious walking routes between Norfolk and Dundas, not many though. Dundas st on that stretch is 40 because it is a school zone, I wonder if the LRT would be reduced too since other than the walking trail to the school and a street I don't think there would be much reason for it to go slow. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 07-15-2018 (07-15-2018, 08:43 PM)Pheidippides Wrote:(07-15-2018, 11:41 AM)jeffster Wrote: 3) The desire to come close to budget. To be honest, I want to know why this isn't a regular practice for every large project. Weber St. could teach many many lessons to staff about what not to do. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - welltoldtales - 07-16-2018 Just to add to the debate of the last pages, I inquired about the new Lancaster Street Reconstruction and was thrice rebuffed because they only do community consultations after engineering. So What I believe are the critical things to consider in the reconstruction won't even be considered until we have spent millions on designing the system (More than likely without community needs). Then politicians and engineers will not want to go back and adjust designs once it is presented as there will be a large amount of sunk cost. I know that community consultations can be frustrating and annoying trying to balance so many "needs". I have seen that many times first hand were members don't know what is critical to their own actual objectives. I do feel like if someone had told the Traynor neighbourhood in 2007 when the system was designed that they wouldn't be able to cross someone would have raised this concern. I also feel like it probably would have been ignored because the very underlying goals of the system didn't align. This is similar to the affordable housing debate around LRT stations. It makes so much sense to plan for affordable housing around LRT because urban poor populations tend to use transit more. But our stated goal was actually to get more development charges and grow the economy. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 07-16-2018 (07-16-2018, 10:17 AM)welltoldtales Wrote: Just to add to the debate of the last pages, I inquired about the new Lancaster Street Reconstruction and was thrice rebuffed because they only do community consultations after engineering. So What I believe are the critical things to consider in the reconstruction won't even be considered until we have spent millions on designing the system (More than likely without community needs). This is a key point. They also don't do any consultation on detailed design. Many of the issues I raise at consultations are "detailed design issues" and I'm told they aren't looking at them right now. But those details matter a lot. Especially for marginal infrastructure. A 1.25 meter bike lane next to a half meter gutter with curb side profile storm drains is vastly different than a 1.25 meter bike lane immediately next to a barrier curb with flat profile storm drains. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 07-16-2018 As a designer of complex automation systems, I totally get where they're coming from. I don't mind when a customer has input at the "concept" stage... but final design reviews are awful if you go into too much detail (or allow the customer to dig really deep). They want to change everything... and there's a massive cost that is involved in that, because it's like doubling your engineering time. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 07-16-2018 (07-16-2018, 12:11 PM)Canard Wrote: As a designer of complex automation systems, I totally get where they're coming from. In our (software) product world, I would solicit for feedback on the high-level requirements from the public early on, before the engineering team develops the detailed design and specifications to meet those requirements. But the city would still need to arbitrate and balance those comments, to define what the final requirements should be. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 07-16-2018 (07-15-2018, 02:21 PM)plam Wrote: Yes. If they were working from maps they wouldn't see it. They would have to work from sat photos, which may not be part of their workflow, or as jeffster points out, the designers may have gotten overruled by people who only looked at the maps. I’m pretty sure no project of this nature gets designed without site visits. Not noticing the plainly obvious existing paths is basically malpractice as far as I’m concerned. Now, as has been discussed by others, we’re never going to be able to figure out specifically whose fault it is — there may well have been junior designers who noticed them and suggested a crossing, or suggested looking at the issue, but who were overruled by more senior and less competent people. It’s even conceivable that Grandlinq asked the Region about it and staff there looked at their book and saw that there was no formal right-of-way so decided to ignore it. In this case it would be the fault of the Regional staff involved. We don’t know, but I don’t think it’s possible for this specific error to have been made without somebody dropping the ball. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 07-16-2018 (07-15-2018, 12:37 PM)Markster Wrote:(07-15-2018, 10:24 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Frankly, I think the root of our disagreement here is that for some reason you refuse to actually think about rail safety, instead retreating to blind application of rules. I’m not sure what word I should be using. The intent of the italics is to suggest that in this particular case when I say “think” I don’t just mean that the topic is consciously present in the mind, but that actual analysis is being done on it, which I don’t believe is the case. I explained briefly why I think it is reasonably safe for those people to cross; the response was just a context-free reference to a website, with absolutely no attempt to explain why I’m wrong (i.e., why it actually isn’t reasonably safe to cross). For example, in another situation (not this one), somebody could explain that from first detecting the train to being under its wheels I would have less than 3s, which is not enough time to clear off the crossing safely and reliably. Quote:I agree with ijmorlan that the Operation Lifesaver stuff goes over the top. You'd think that all trains are stealth machines traveling at HSR speeds on any track at any time. Well put. Spur Line < LRT < mainline freight < HSR. And to a large extent this is reflected in the crossing requirements, ranging from nothing in some cases along the Spur Line up to no level crossings permitted at all on HSR. To be fair to Operation Lifesaver, my impression is that they emphasize mainline heavy rail, which tends to have high speeds, low frequencies, and long trains. So it’s easy to believe a line is abandoned — one could cross daily for years and never see a train — and believe that playing on it is no problem at all. Urban LRT is very different and is really much more like a bus every few minutes. So intrinsically much safer than a busy road, which in addition to the bus every few minutes has a constant stream of cars and trucks. |