ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit

[ijmorlan]

There are perfectly straight sections of track where this is an issue. Slowing down around turns is reasonable but trains going straight along Northfield which last time I was there, were limited to 50km/h when surrounding traffic is limited to 60km/h and routinely exceeds 80km/h. They are separated from the road with fully controlled cross traffic, and the track is straight.

I agree. I have some questions about some of their cornering speeds — it really feels like they slow to a crawl, beyond what should be needed — but my big concern is with long segments of straight or near straight track where they go not much faster and it’s clear that it’s just the rules, not the result of an engineering decision to make a curve a particular radius.

[danbrotherston]

The ~880MM is the closest of those numbers to a billion.

I think the Grandlinq contract total value might be higher. But of course that is an arbitrary number which could have been made to come out arbitrarily high by going for a different number of years. 30 years of maintenance and operation turns out to be a lot of money.

I also forgot to mention gross expense or net of fare revenue, which because of integration with the bus system introduces a whole other set of complexities. Turns out buying transit systems isn’t like buying pens and pencils.

Yes, the Grandlinq total contract is higher, but AFAIK it's considerably more than 120 million over 1 billion...hence, 880MM is the closest number.

Try to tell that to some folks lol.

[taylortbb]

I don't think that's a regulatory issue, that's the design speed of the track. ION phase 1 was all about reducing costs, and higher speeds cost more. Higher speeds require the track be straighter, which then requires more expropriation to straighten out the street, and so on. Or you use high-floor trains, which have significantly more flexibility with track geometry, but then you spend more on the stations.

There are perfectly straight sections of track where this is an issue. Slowing down around turns is reasonable but trains going straight along Northfield which last time I was there, were limited to 50km/h when surrounding traffic is limited to 60km/h and routinely exceeds 80km/h. They are separated from the road with fully controlled cross traffic, and the track is straight.

I don't know the exact issues on Northfield, but I've seen no evidence they're regulatory. OCS tension, track ballasting (for the section on the bridge), etc are all factors in the design speed. I agree it's annoying we only designed sections like that for 50km/h, but I still don't think it's regulatory. In the on-street sections they're regulated like streetcars, which are limited to the speed limit on the road.

[KevinL]

Among the documents released yesterday is a more fine-tuned and detailed PDF of the planned route. As it's detailed it's a large download, naturally - find it here: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...roject.pdf

If you prefer a more descriptive document with less reliance on diagrams, the second half of this one highlights the main areas well and includes things like bridge cross-sections and road layouts. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...access.pdf

[welltoldtales]

Makes sense to get this out there right now. The feds and everyone else is out there looking for "shovel ready" projects to kickstart jobs and the region 100% should be taking advantage of this. It's the same reason they are trying to wrap up the transit hub because the expected capital hanging around is pretty wild. The Fed's infrastructure bank idea didn't really come off so they have a bunch of money sitting there and then there is all the pandemic spending capital.

[plam]

I'm pretty sure they are going faster now. Of course I have no way to measure the speed, but when it does travel down certain sections of "safe" track it really does seem to go faster than before. As for when it travels anywhere near roads, it goes as slow as it always has.

It makes me downright angry that the LRV is limited to a lower speed limit than the surrounding traffic in many places. But it kind of demonstrates what I said in another thread, our regulations for ground transport are an abject failure.

I get that it's frustrating. But transit is often slower even the best of cases. Perhaps frequency is more important than speed.

[danbrotherston]

It makes me downright angry that the LRV is limited to a lower speed limit than the surrounding traffic in many places. But it kind of demonstrates what I said in another thread, our regulations for ground transport are an abject failure.

I get that it's frustrating. But transit is often slower even the best of cases. Perhaps frequency is more important than speed.

It doesn't have to be this way, in the Netherlands, transit is often faster than driving.

But ultimately, this is the case because we have not spent every last penny we have making driving faster.

But when transit is artificially slowed down more than drivers (who are less safe) that's just an added layer of spit in the face.

Edit: Yes, also frequency is freedom.

[ac3r]

Among the documents released yesterday is a more fine-tuned and detailed PDF of the planned route. As it's detailed it's a large download, naturally - find it here: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...roject.pdf

If you prefer a more descriptive document with less reliance on diagrams, the second half of this one highlights the main areas well and includes things like bridge cross-sections and road layouts. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...access.pdf

Interesting, thanks. I still can't get over the fact they plan to run the LRT through the centre of a roundabout...like come on. The point in a roundabout is to essentially keep traffic from ever do more than slow to yield (except when they stop to let a pedestrian cross), but now we'll have a disruption every 10/15 minutes as the thing traverses it at a snails pace through there.

If there is any single place worth making a short tunnel for, it's here. People are going to hate it, but hey we save a few bucks, I guess.

[danbrotherston]

Among the documents released yesterday is a more fine-tuned and detailed PDF of the planned route. As it's detailed it's a large download, naturally - find it here: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...roject.pdf

If you prefer a more descriptive document with less reliance on diagrams, the second half of this one highlights the main areas well and includes things like bridge cross-sections and road layouts. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...access.pdf

Interesting, thanks. I still can't get over the fact they plan to run the LRT through the centre of a roundabout...like come on. The point in a roundabout is to essentially keep traffic from ever do more than slow to yield (except when they stop to let a pedestrian cross), but now we'll have a disruption every 10/15 minutes as the thing traverses it at a snails pace through there.

If there is any single place worth making a short tunnel for, it's here. People are going to hate it, but hey we save a few bucks, I guess.

I'm never against slowing down drivers.

[dtkvictim]

Among the documents released yesterday is a more fine-tuned and detailed PDF of the planned route. As it's detailed it's a large download, naturally - find it here: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...roject.pdf

If you prefer a more descriptive document with less reliance on diagrams, the second half of this one highlights the main areas well and includes things like bridge cross-sections and road layouts. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...access.pdf

Interesting, thanks. I still can't get over the fact they plan to run the LRT through the centre of a roundabout...like come on. The point in a roundabout is to essentially keep traffic from ever do more than slow to yield (except when they stop to let a pedestrian cross), but now we'll have a disruption every 10/15 minutes as the thing traverses it at a snails pace through there.

If there is any single place worth making a short tunnel for, it's here. People are going to hate it, but hey we save a few bucks, I guess.

As long as people are able to follow the rules (which is a big assumption), then roundabouts have a big advantage in transit signal priority, since there is no competing signal.

[Bytor]

LRTs through roundabouts have been done elsewhere.

Nantes, France: https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/460000549413269994/

Phoenix, USA: https://www.enr.com/articles/47069-round...-in-the-us

Warsaw, Poland: https://twitter.com/cwayzee/status/1337243862243438594

[ijmorlan]

Did anybody notice that they’re planning to bury a bit more of the hydro line, through to the transformer station on the other side of Fairway Road?

Seems like they might have realized they needed to do that when they buried the other part for Phase 1. It’s not like the desire for Phase 2 was a big surprise.

Not to mention the final pair of OCS poles positioned exactly where the track extension needs to go.

On the plus side, it appears to be separated right of way with just a few level crossings all the way from Fairview to Hespeler Rd. so it shouldn’t be limited by roadway speed limits.

[taylortbb]

Did anybody notice that they’re planning to bury a bit more of the hydro line, through to the transformer station on the other side of Fairway Road?

Seems like they might have realized they needed to do that when they buried the other part for Phase 1. It’s not like the desire for Phase 2 was a big surprise.

Not to mention the final pair of OCS poles positioned exactly where the track extension needs to go.

I'm sure it was known, but unless it was absolutely essential it was cut from phase 1. There's a reason that (per km) it's the cheapest LRT project built recently in North America. We got exactly the bare bones system we paid for.

[ac3r]

LRTs through roundabouts have been done elsewhere.

Nantes, France: https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/460000549413269994/

Phoenix, USA: https://www.enr.com/articles/47069-round...-in-the-us

Warsaw, Poland: https://twitter.com/cwayzee/status/1337243862243438594

It can be done, it's just a stupid solution. It isn't that costly or hard to do a bit of cut and cover work to put the thing underground for a few meters. They're building like a dozen elevated sections, right? Now we'll just have a train that...as usual...can't navigate any turn or operate near any street unless it slows down to <10km/h. There's a reason the Waterloo Chronicle ran this amusing image...because if this is light rail rapid transit then it is indeed being powered by horse and buggy at the speed it goes.

[Bytor]

It can be done, it's just a stupid solution. It isn't that costly or hard to do a bit of cut and cover work

Cut and cover is about 3x more expensive, costing about $150M/km on average compared to surface rail which costs $45M/k.

to put the thing underground for a few meters.

Except it's not just "a few metres" as you so blithely call it. The elevated approach to the CPR track that crosses Eagle St requires runs of 200m and 230m on each side to get high enough over the track. Since the roadway would need to be above the LRT track at least as much as the LRT track would need to be above the freight line, if not more to allow for the catenaries.

They're building like a dozen elevated sections, right?

Five.

Now we'll just have a train that...as usual...can't navigate any turn

Did you expect this to go around corners like a high-speed tilting train? Don't be ridiculous. Faster turns on rail require more cant, and more cant is uncomfortable for passengers.

or operate near any street unless it slows down to <10km/h.

I find that the trams generally go through crossings at about 15km/h. I've measured them with my phone's GPS, and only at Hayward where there's turns do they go slower