ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[mpd618]

There might be some speed advantage.

Have a look at those LRT speed limit signs that are going up along the line, and the number of signalized intersections that the Region has shown no willingness to make always green for LRT. There would have been a clear speed advantage to a grade separated line. (There would also have been a cost in time to access the platform.)

But when you get to the economics of it, without regard for feelings or emotions, an LRT system as we are building is a good fit for our city, in terms of capacity needs and space needs.  If you were to build a subway instead the effect would be to subsidize more space for cars.  That's simply the economics of it.

Talking about "simply the economics" in terms of capacity and space is weird for a rapid transit line that is about shaping the built environment and guiding new development. Those aren't emotion-free decisions, and neither are the decisions made by prospective riders.

That said, unless there really is something new we're finding out here, relitigating the technology choice for this particular nearing-completion transit line isn't particularly valuable.

[Drake]

Why would I believe that lanes of traffic that had been used by cars for years would be used for anything other than cars if a monorail or subway was built?

As for it not being safer, that is just ridiculous.

[danbrotherston]

Why would I believe that lanes of traffic that had been used by cars for years would be used for anything other than cars if a monorail or subway was built?

As for it not being safer, that is just ridiculous.

There you go then, if a grade separated line was built, the benefit would be that drivers keep four lanes on King St.  

How is it "ridiculous" that it isn't safer?  LRTs are very safe, (except in Houston apparently).  And subways aren't free from accidents, nor are monorails.

So I don't see why it is "ridiculous" to suggest that it's not clearly a win in terms of safety.


@mpd618 Yes the speed limits are disappointing, as for "always green", they're green to keep the train on schedule, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.  But that's a policy decision, not an inherent limitation of the LRT technology.  There's no reason that a grade separated train couldn't be similarly limited.  Like I said though, there might be a difference in speed.

You are right, that there is an urban planning aspect to it.  Is there evidence that a subway or monorail is more effective at shaping the urban landscape?  I honestly don't know.  I would guess that having a four lane road instead of a two lane road might have a detrimental effect, although I have no idea how either compares with an LRT right of way.

I don't know that there is something new being discussed.  But there are always new members who might be interested in discussing, or understanding why grade separated isn't always the best choice.  I certainly am in that camp.  For a long time I thought the only good thing about Rob Ford was that he demanded subways (I mean besides the fact I felt he would never actually pay for them), but after reading up on it more, I now feel that LRTs have their place in the right contexts.

[Pheidippides]

Another interesting utility box placement. This one is right at Famoso Pizza in uptown.

I took this one, but waited to see if it would be a flat lid or a vertical box:
   

It is indeed a vertical box that pushes the sidewalk to jog considerably:
   


This was taken at University and tracks, before the snow obviously, but the beautiful sod was wasted because the sidewalk and activation button are too far apart. By the time the snow gets piled it will completely inaccessible until the spring and then just a giant mud patch.
   


I really wish a pedestrian lens had been used more frequently for some of the finer details of this project.

[Pheidippides]

The crossing arms have been going in as well, and... well... some of them are in really awkward locations.

I'm interested in how the arm on the south east corner is going to end up. Last I checked it looked to be configured to potentially "trap" pedestrians between the barrier and the tracks.
   

[danbrotherston]

This was taken at University and tracks, before the snow obviously, but the beautiful sod was wasted because the sidewalk and activation button are too far apart. By the time the snow gets piled it will completely inaccessible until the spring and then just a giant mud patch.



I really wish a pedestrian lens had been used more frequently for some of the finer details of this project.

This one really drove me nuts. The whole design of this intersection is just terrible, nowhere even remotely close to sufficient capacity for the number of pedestrians.

My only guess is the position of the pole is a gift from Grandlink to the region, because there is an intention to widen this crossing to make it a crossride. That being said, that still won't fix the awful awful design on the University side where everyone crammed onto a tiny sidewalk.

[timc]

This was taken at University and tracks, before the snow obviously, but the beautiful sod was wasted because the sidewalk and activation button are too far apart. By the time the snow gets piled it will completely inaccessible until the spring and then just a giant mud patch.

That one is especially glaring because the concrete on the other side of the crossing was done correctly, right up to, and partway around, the pole.

[tomh009]

At least this type of problem is easy to fix.

[Markster]

It's not so easy, because of the buried electrical box on the north side of University, that prohibits the trail running in any kind of "straight" . It will be an expensive fix, considering they just did work on that electrical stuff 2 years ago, and are unlikely to move it now.
The only plausible solution is to change the crossing of University to be not-exactly-perpendicular, and parallel the tracks. But in that case, I think there might be poles in the way.

It's all garbage, and no one cared about actual pedestrian/cyclist design.

Well, except for the engineer that drew the Duke St area. A+ work there.

[Canard]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain">@Canardiain</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/RegionWaterloo">@RegionWaterloo</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CityKitchener">@CityKitchener</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/citywaterloo">@citywaterloo</a> Region wide no stopping/parking on the rapid way by-law goes into effect Jan 1,2017</p>&mdash; ION (@rideIONrt) <a href="https://twitter.com/rideIONrt/status/808368912203190272">December 12, 2016</a></blockquote>

Please retweet the hell out of this.

[nms]

Now that we've had our first major snowfall of the season...
I understand that the LRVs are expected to be able to plow the right of way to keep it free of snow. In the hypothetical case that they can't perform this task adequately, who covers the cost of modifications?
For example, beefing up the nose or adding a plow; or in the worst case, acquiring a dedicated plow vehicle. I could see an argument for the cost begin covered by either the Region (since it didn't provide vehicles that can clear the tracks) or by GrandLinq (since they are contracted to provide the LRT service come snow or high water etc).

[Canard]

No plough will be added to the trains.

A couple of trains will run overnight continuously in heavy snowfall (like last night) to keep snow from accumulating.

Worst case, I could see them buying a rail truck with a plough on the front. But definitely no plough is getting added to the trains. Can 100% guarantee that!

[Markster]

I would expect that for the on-street sections, it wouldn't be unheard of to see a regular plow run through.

[KevinL]

Worst case, I could see them buying a rail truck with a plough on the front.  

Most likely outcome in my mind.

[clasher]

They could get a plow just like the GRR used to use on their lines, here's an example still in use.