ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

"I do object to stopping for nothing at all"...lol...pedestrians know that pain well:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.453789,-...384!8i8192

Yes, that one is particularly egregious. Somebody (ideally the Region, but whoever really) should bag the spurious signals.

At Erb/Caroline I’ve been known to either walk or go through on my bike at speed diagonally parallel to the tracks while the gates are down.

Just the other day I had the vague idea for some sort of performance art project which takes over Erb immediately east of Caroline each time the gates are down and clears out by the time they’re up again.

They should, and it's been requested half a dozen times. They care so little about pedestrians they won't even bag the lights. This kind of behaviour just reveals their priorities. They want to know why I have nothing good to say about them, this is why.

[plam]

Just the other day I had the vague idea for some sort of performance art project which takes over Erb immediately east of Caroline each time the gates are down and clears out by the time they’re up again.

Had something like that in Wellington though it wasn't trying to make this point (which also applies to NZ sadly). They had short performances when the crosswalks were set to walk.

[trainspotter139]

I mean, yes, they do hold up traffic for a short time, and yes, drivers do seem to be offended by that, but it in no way holds up the LRT. Building massive overpass structures in those locations would have cost at least 100 million dollars and created large imposing obstacles in the built environment. And the ONLY beneficiary would be driver, it would be yet another subsidy paid to motordom.  Worse, the cost would have been assigned to transit. And all to avoid what is a completely reasonable level of delay.

Before spending money on grade separations, they should start by improving the design of the existing crossings. For example at Erb/Caroline, there is no conflict between southbound LRT traffic and Caroline St. traffic. So why does the entire intersection come to a halt when a southbound LRT goes through? Also, when a northbound LRT goes through the crossing protection starts way too early, while it’s still in station. Vehicle and pedestrian traffic has to stop (which is fine); but for no reason at all other than laziness in designing the crossing protection (which is not fine). As a driver, I don’t mind stopping for pedestrian, cyclists, LRVs, and other motor vehicles; but I do object to stopping for nothing at all.

The grade crossing signals at Erb/Caroline operate like this for a reason, not the least of which is the multiple routing paths that the signal controller has to track. There's also the fact that Northbound and Southbound movements often overlap, especially at specific frequencies. There's heavy pedestrian and cyclist traffic at that intersection which conflicts with all directions of train movement through the intersection. Don't forget about the bus only left turn lane on NB Caroline onto WB Erb. If anything, the only movement in that intersection that has very little conflict is the left turn from SB Caroline to EB Erb (the one where you can legally do a left turn on a red).

[danbrotherston]

Before spending money on grade separations, they should start by improving the design of the existing crossings. For example at Erb/Caroline, there is no conflict between southbound LRT traffic and Caroline St. traffic. So why does the entire intersection come to a halt when a southbound LRT goes through? Also, when a northbound LRT goes through the crossing protection starts way too early, while it’s still in station. Vehicle and pedestrian traffic has to stop (which is fine); but for no reason at all other than laziness in designing the crossing protection (which is not fine). As a driver, I don’t mind stopping for pedestrian, cyclists, LRVs, and other motor vehicles; but I do object to stopping for nothing at all.

The grade crossing signals at Erb/Caroline operate like this for a reason, not the least of which is the multiple routing paths that the signal controller has to track. There's also the fact that Northbound and Southbound movements often overlap, especially at specific frequencies. There's heavy pedestrian and cyclist traffic at that intersection which conflicts with all directions of train movement through the intersection. Don't forget about the bus only left turn lane on NB Caroline onto WB Erb. If anything, the only movement in that intersection that has very little conflict is the left turn from SB Caroline to EB Erb (the one where you can legally do a left turn on a red).

Two of four pedestrian directs have no conflict with any tracks, and there is no reason that a signal controller cannot have one mode for southbound, one mode for northbound and then one mode for both. 

There are plenty of simpler intersections with equally poor signaling.

[ijmorlan]

The grade crossing signals at Erb/Caroline operate like this for a reason, not the least of which is the multiple routing paths that the signal controller has to track. There's also the fact that Northbound and Southbound movements often overlap, especially at specific frequencies. There's heavy pedestrian and cyclist traffic at that intersection which conflicts with all directions of train movement through the intersection. Don't forget about the bus only left turn lane on NB Caroline onto WB Erb. If anything, the only movement in that intersection that has very little conflict is the left turn from SB Caroline to EB Erb (the one where you can legally do a left turn on a red).

I’m not forgetting about anything. I don’t know much about railway signalling equipment. It’s possible the design of readily available equipment is deficient and unable to deal with real-world situations.

But what I know, and what anybody who observes the intersection knows, is that Caroline St. vehicle traffic (except for the southbound right turn onto Erb westbound, and the bus left turn) does not conflict with the southbound train. If the signalling control equipment cannot be configured to understand this, then it is not fit for purpose.

I have to deal with this from the other side professionally. I build and maintain business process applications for the University of Waterloo; on a number of occasions I have had a suggestion for an improvement to which my initial reaction is basically “that would be awfully inconvenient to implement”. But on further consideration, I realize that the requests are too reasonable from the client perspective to dismiss out of hand; then after further thinking, I realize how to implement them.

So I stand by my statement. If you have expert details to share about why it’s harder than it sounds to do it properly, due to poorly designed equipment, I’m actually interested; but we don’t need expert arrogance around this issue. This is not the only area where the LRT has been implemented unreasonably. There are several other intersections where non-conflicting vehicle and/or pedestrian traffic is held for LRT movements.

[Bytor]

It’s possible the design of readily available equipment is deficient and unable to deal with real-world situations.

I would find that to be an unbelievable option. Control systems are just too ubiquitous, and you only have to look at Europe to find examples of far more complex arrangements. Heck, I would suggest that Dutch systems for their car, cycle, and pedestrian network intersections are far more complex than any LRT-involved intersection here in Waterloo Region.

The true problem, IMNSHO, the simplicity and lack of smarts in Waterloo Region's traffic signal system, running on pretty much 1970s-era technologies.

[Bytor]

I got a notice of completion of the Environemntal Project Report for ION Stage 2 in the mail today. The mandatory 30 day public review starts today and lasts until May 6th. You can got to https://engagewr.ca/Stage2ION to see the report.

[ijmorlan]

It’s possible the design of readily available equipment is deficient and unable to deal with real-world situations.

I would find that to be an unbelievable option. Control systems are just too ubiquitous, and you only have to look at Europe to find examples of far more complex arrangements. Heck, I would suggest that Dutch systems for their car, cycle, and pedestrian network intersections are far more complex than any LRT-involved intersection here in Waterloo Region.

The true problem, IMNSHO, the simplicity and lack of smarts in Waterloo Region's traffic signal system, running on pretty much 1970s-era technologies.

I also find it to be an unbelievable option.

It’s possible the existing intersection control systems are deficient — the only way to interface to the LRT systems may be to go to all-red when so instructed. But that’s just an excuse, not an acceptable explanation. The new intersections don’t need to use the exact same old-fashioned equipment that may be in use at other intersections.

Note that at Northfield the system as installed already behaves differently depending on what rail route is in use — LRT traffic activates the protection system only for the eastbound lanes, whereas freight activates it for all lanes.

[tomh009]

It’s possible the design of readily available equipment is deficient and unable to deal with real-world situations.

The true problem, IMNSHO, the simplicity and lack of smarts in Waterloo Region's traffic signal system, running on pretty much 1970s-era technologies.

I doubt the "1970s-era technologies" given that they are able to integrate with Miovision.

I would check the Transport Canada grade crossing regulations first.

[danbrotherston]

The true problem, IMNSHO, the simplicity and lack of smarts in Waterloo Region's traffic signal system, running on pretty much 1970s-era technologies.

I doubt the "1970s-era technologies" given that they are able to integrate with Miovision.

I would check the Transport Canada grade crossing regulations first.

AFAIK The TC grade crossing regulations would only apply to intersections with railway gates, not to intersections with traffic and transit signals.

[Bytor]

The true problem, IMNSHO, the simplicity and lack of smarts in Waterloo Region's traffic signal system, running on pretty much 1970s-era technologies.

I doubt the "1970s-era technologies" given that they are able to integrate with Miovision.

The ground-loop and strobe light sensors have not changed much since the 1970s. All they do is raise voltage on a circuit, and I'd be very surprised if Myovision controller-brains could not interface with older installations like that. After all, who'd buy them if you had to replace your city's entire traffic sensor grid to take advance of better CPUs and programing because Myovision used a new/proprietary connection type? That would have killed their chances at establishing a foothold in the market as the places most likely to upgrade are the ones with older equipment approaching the end of the lifecycle.

However, my point was that the current traffic control systems in our fair Region are out-of-date and have been so for a while, and simply unable to do the more complex tasks like one regularly finds in use elsewhere on the planet. If I'm wrong about that and they can do more, why haven't the Region and the Cities bothered to do something different with the intersections mentioned previous where even non LRT conflicting paths are made to stop? Many of them are not under Transport Canada rail guidelines (which can admittedly be stupid), so why require every path to stop when you can still keep some of the paths moving and not block traffic?

Consider the radar sensor in this video. It's more complicated than a ground-loop but it's logic is all still self-contained. All it does it send the central controller for the intersection a request to add a few seconds to the green light countdown. How much you want to bet that the intersection controllers used locally can only use the sensors as a trigger to choose a branch in a limited, simple state machine? Such as "Is the ground-loop active?

I would check the Transport Canada grade crossing regulations first.

Except many of the LRT intersections have nothing to do with Transport Canada Regulations. Take Borden & Charles. Totally shuts down the intersection when a tram leaves the station southbound even though there are non-conflicting paths, like left from Charles to Borden following the tram, straight through on Charles the opposite direction of the tram, turning right from Borden on to Charles around the Tim Hortons corner, and 2 of the 4 pedestrian crossings. That's not the only intersection where that type of things happens.

If the problem is not that of dated, inadequate signal controller equipment incapable of more than simple state machines, then the entire traffic engineering staff needs to be fired for not using the system's full capabilities.

[danbrotherston]

I doubt the "1970s-era technologies" given that they are able to integrate with Miovision.

The ground-loop and strobe light sensors have not changed much since the 1970s. All they do is raise voltage on a circuit, and I'd be very surprised if Myovision controller-brains could not interface with older installations like that. After all, who'd buy them if you had to replace your city's entire traffic sensor grid to take advance of better CPUs and programing because Myovision used a new/proprietary connection type? That would have killed their chances at establishing a foothold in the market as the places most likely to upgrade are the ones with older equipment approaching the end of the lifecycle.

However, my point was that the current traffic control systems in our fair Region are out-of-date and have been so for a while, and simply unable to do the more complex tasks like one regularly finds in use elsewhere on the planet. If I'm wrong about that and they can do more, why haven't the Region and the Cities bothered to do something different with the intersections mentioned previous where even non LRT conflicting paths are made to stop? Many of them are not under Transport Canada rail guidelines (which can admittedly be stupid), so why require every path to stop when you can still keep some of the paths moving and not block traffic?

I would check the Transport Canada grade crossing regulations first.

Except many of the LRT intersections have nothing to do with Transport Canada Regulations. Take Borden & Charles. Totally shuts down the intersection when a tram leaves the station southbound even though there are non-conflicting paths, like left from Charles to Borden following the tram, straight through on Charles the opposite direction of the tram, turning right from Borden on to Charles around the Tim Hortons corner, and 2 of the 4 pedestrian crossings. That's not the only intersection where that type of things happens.

If the problem is not that of dated, inadequate signal controller equipment incapable of more than simple patterns, then the entire traffic engineering staff needs to be fired.

Because in addition to prioritizing vehicles above all else, they are also aggressively conservative.

While I probably wouldn't say something that extreme, I strongly agree with the sentiment.

[Bytor]

While I probably wouldn't say something that extreme, I strongly agree with the sentiment.

You, not say something extreme? What have you done with the real Daniel Brotherston? ;-)

[danbrotherston]

While I probably wouldn't say something that extreme, I strongly agree with the sentiment.

You, not say something extreme? What have you done with the real Daniel Brotherston? ;-)

What can I say, I'm getting soft in my old age...

[danbrotherston]

my proposal

king/university/erb line to board walk with Kitchener west go.


boardwalk - highland/Victoria line

spur Kitchener south to cambridge

Given that it's a former rail alignment, Homer Watson Blvd South is screaming out to have an LRT run down the middle of it. Plenty of development opportunities along the mostly abandoned rail corridor as well. The trick though is what you'd need to do to people's houses is Preston though. It would definitely be cheaper than the current proposed elevated structures crossing the Grand and Speed rivers though.

There is a lot to like about that alignment...I've always wondered why they didn't go down Homer Watson, hitting Conestoga College would have been a huge win, but even the rest seems to have far more housing and developement and would be cheaper than the option that was chosen.  All you give up is the alignment at sportsworld (which could be hit in ... I dunno Phase 5 when we build a branch to Hespler).