ION Stage I: what would you do differently?

[ac3r]

I think we spent too much for what we got. We could have spent less and got close to the same, or more and got a system that would have been truly independent, not relying on the very roads we all claim to despise here, that goes just as slow as cars at times and has to stop at red lights to let them pass.

Thanks for the detailed reply and the great pictures, I think I have a better idea of what you’re suggesting.

Part of my problem is that I’m significantly less enthusiastic about the system as it is operated than I am about it as a concept. A significant amount of the slowness has to do with how they’re operating it, essentially due to safety paranoia (although I’m not totally clear if the paranoia is from the system management or filtered through safety regulations, so I don’t know who would have to be convinced to change it).

Definitely. The concept isn't bad - a rapid transit system in a region of 625'00ish people - but they cut so many corners just to get it approved by the public and the government. It's slow and anyone arguing otherwise just sounds like a train foamer to me.

I agree it could go a lot faster and while I don't know the reason why it is so slow in certain parts...but safety seems like it might be the reason. After Block Line Station, it crawls along at a walking pace until it gets past the bends near Hayward. I was riding it downtown today and thought to myself, "yeah this is ridiculous, it's like they're afraid the train is going to tip over if it takes these turns faster than 5km/h". It could have been elevated past Block Line Station until it got to the train right of way and maintained a much faster speed. I mean, if we're so worried about costs, then why elevate so many sections of the route into Cambridge? A lot of it could be run at surface level, especially between Fairway and Sportsworld Stations (and I've seen people here ask why they are doing that when it could be run surface level, sans the bridges needed to cross the valley's and river). I've got all the CAD drawings for Phase 2 printed out on huge sheets of paper in my office since we're studying this and we've determined it could indeed be run within the traffic for many sections if they wanted, cutting out a good portion of the sections on elevated viaducts.

Even with my far fetched ideas, 85% of the LRT could continue the way it does. If it was intended to be rapid transit, as the name implies, we could have buried and elevated where needed through the cores, but we didn't and now it takes turns at the speed it does. Maybe it'll speed up a few kh/h with tweaks, but it has been operational for around a year and we haven't even considered it. I truly doubt anything will change at this point.

If safety is the issue, then look at where the only real problems have been thus far: where it intersects with traffic and drivers crash their cars into the thing. Pedestrians aren't getting run over, the only incidents are when someone in a car thinks "I can make the turn before it gets here". I am pretty certain almost all of the crashes have taken place downtown/uptown where the train mixes with traffic, with the exception of the one individual killed by it somewhere near Waterloo Park.