ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit

[Bytor]

King St in Preston is not suits for centre running, two track LRT and a vehicle lane on either side like Charles St. in Kitchener was turned into, it's just too narrow.

And Queenston Rd. as you chose for the first bit would require significant expropriations to run two track LRT plus even just a single vehicle lane.

I'm not sure why you say it's too narrow...it's four lanes the whole way.

And yes, I know Cambridge....-ites....-ers...*googles*...Cantabrigians?! really?!  Okay then. Cantabridgians believe the world will literally end if that road has less than four lanes...but...I mean...they're tiresome...hardly a real objection...this is a fantasy map anyway.

I say it because it is true.

First off, King St. in Preston is not 4 lanes wilde. https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3931728,-...384!8i8192

https://i.ibb.co/VHkKM6p/Hypothetical-LR...reston.png

That's the width of Charles street post LRT construction overlain onto Preston's King St with building outlines. The red ones are the ones that would need to be torn down.

Here's the same map but without the satellite imagery. Light blue is asphalt outer width, salmon are the sidewalks. not all the building outlines that overlap.

https://i.ibb.co/MfSKfrL/lrt-preston-king-1-300dpi.png

You cannot fit two tracks plus two lanes down it.

[danbrotherston]

I'm not sure why you say it's too narrow...it's four lanes the whole way.

And yes, I know Cambridge....-ites....-ers...*googles*...Cantabrigians?! really?!  Okay then. Cantabridgians believe the world will literally end if that road has less than four lanes...but...I mean...they're tiresome...hardly a real objection...this is a fantasy map anyway.

I say it because it is true.

First off, King St. in Preston is not 4 lanes wilde. https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.3931728,-...384!8i8192

https://i.ibb.co/VHkKM6p/Hypothetical-LR...reston.png

That's the width of Charles street post LRT construction overlain onto Preston's King St with building outlines. The red ones are the ones that would need to be torn down.

Here's the same map but without the satellite imagery. Light blue is asphalt outer width, salmon are the sidewalks. not all the building outlines that overlap.

https://i.ibb.co/MfSKfrL/lrt-preston-king-1-300dpi.png

You cannot fit two tracks plus two lanes down it.

The fantasy map does not have the ION on King at that location, in fact, it only diverts TO king at the point where King becomes 4 lanes.

Queenston Rd. is another issue, I'm not sure what dunkalunk was suggesting for that section, but it's clear they were intentionally avoiding the narrow parts of King St.

[dunkalunk]

Mixed traffic, right in right your for motor vehicles.

[danbrotherston]

Mixed traffic, right in right your for motor vehicles.

Fair enough.

My opinion would be that King St. should be a car free pedestrian + transit street...since we're making fantasy maps ...

But I also thought that about DTK and uptown.

[ijmorlan]

Mixed traffic, right in right your for motor vehicles.

That is incompatible with a high quality LRT service. It would be fine for turning loops or carhouse access, or if the motor vehicle traffic is very limited (deliveries to just a few addresses, or only allowed during extremely off hours). I find it hard to imagine a scenario where it’s so important to allow a few cars through that it justifies slowing the LRT service.

[dunkalunk]

If you intend to have driveway access on the street, then closing some accesses and limiting vehicle movements will ensure only local residents have access. Otherwise, yes, you're looking at demolishing the entire half of the road to run the LRT thru Person and that's not going to fly. Queenstown Rd is not and should not be a through street wehn both King and Hamilton are adjacent.

[Bytor]

If its constrained, why does it need to be fully separated from traffic? If it needs to be separated from traffic, why not split the route?

Splitting the route is not an idea situation as not only do you need twice the stations for that part, but you also reduce the level of service because it is a farther walk to the other direction. People on the far side of Margaret Ave. from Kitchener City Hall Station don't have the same level of service as people on the far side of Weber St. E. from Kitchener Market Station. People will only walk so far to an LRT station, even if it is further than they would to a bis stop, and if they have to use a pair of stations then you get lots of people for whom only one is within their person threshold so they keep using their car. Instead of having a nice big 800-1000m catchment area around both sides King St in DTK we effectively only have a 400-500m catchment.

We never would have gotten Stage 1 built without doing this, but it should still only be a last resort.

[plam]

We never would have gotten Stage 1 built without doing this, but it should still only be a last resort.

Yep. Region of Waterloo staff said this to me. Definitely less keen on splitting the route through Cambridge.

[ac3r]

For the price tag they're putting on it, I'd expect more than a shitty surface running LRT system with the tracks split up yet again. 4.5+ billion should be enough for an entire elevated metro or subway system. But this is Waterloo Region so I'm sure they'll find a way to screw it up and build the worst possible option available, should it ever get built.

[Bytor]

For the price tag they're putting on it, I'd expect more than a shitty surface running LRT system with the tracks split up yet again. 4.5+ billion should be enough for an entire elevated metro or subway system. But this is Waterloo Region so I'm sure they'll find a way to screw it up and build the worst possible option available, should it ever get built.

The functional design have already been published, so, no, there's won't be any split tracks. The only contemplated change is moving the southern terminus from Bruce St. back to Ainslie Terminal.

Adding split sections would certainly require a recosting and an *increase* in the cost from otherwise unnecessarily duplicated stations and other items, to potentially a whole new TPA.

[dunkalunk]

What If Stage 2 ION were a BRT and GO RER instead?



Features:

Bus
-Dedicated busway on South side of 401, industrial rail spur
-Queue jump lanes on Homer Watson Blvd, Hespeler Rd, River Rd Extension, and King St
-Intercity bus terminal moved to the 401/Highway 8 interchange

GO RER
-15 Minute frequency between Downtown Galt and Downtown Hespeler
-30 Minute frequency between Downtown Galt and Guelph

This would of course require the MTO to give up 2 lanes of the 401, so the dedicated busway would probably not happen

[ac3r]

BRT would be useless though. Short term? I guess it could work, but we're still one of the fastest growing regions in the entire country. We'd rapidly hit bus capacity sooner than later. I'd rather just spend the money (though not 4.5+ billion) on light rail so that we have a system that is going to have sufficient capacity for a long time.

[bravado]

Any other plan means that we are all acknowledging that $4.5B is real and normal, which is just such a failure.

[bravado]

https://www.cambridgetoday.ca/local-news...er-6926036

16.3km 4-lane highway project cost goes from $800M to "$2-4 billion" and I bet nobody will dig in and find out why. It's not in the government's DNA to self-reflect and optimize.

[danbrotherston]

https://www.cambridgetoday.ca/local-news...er-6926036

16.3km 4-lane highway project cost goes from $800M to "$2-4 billion" and I bet nobody will dig in and find out why. It's not in the government's DNA to self-reflect and optimize.

Lol...a conservative government...be fiscally responsible...don't make me laugh...