ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Rainrider22]

I've always thought Victoria was just the natural fit for an East-West route - I never really thought anything else made sense.

I agree, it makes the most sense and would serve a greater number of people.  Plus, it would go right by the new transit terminal.  It could be easily integrated into that station.  And if you want to think bigger, it could link the new proposed Breslau GO station to DTK and you could link from there to the airport.   I think that would be amazing..

[panamaniac]

I've always thought Victoria was just the natural fit for an East-West route - I never really thought anything else made sense.

I agree, it makes the most sense and would serve a greater number of people.  Plus, it would go right by the new transit terminal.  It could be easily integrated into that station.  And if you want to think bigger, it could link the new proposed Breslau GO station to DTK and you could link from there to the airport.   I think that would be amazing..

With the Boardwalk as the western terminal.   That would also ensure at least a bit of the third line would be in Waterloo (I think local politics will make it obligatory that any third LRT line serve both cities, in one way or another).

[Rainrider22]

So there you have it...Boardwalk to Breslau. Now you get the township too !!

[panamaniac]

So there you have it...Boardwalk to Breslau.  Now you get the township too !!

They want it, they gotta pay!

[Rainrider22]

exactly !!  But they will say it only benefits part of Wolwhich township, so what part pays !!

[KevinT]

Some video from last Thursday's load testing of 506, including some crossover action with a panto spark:

[C Plus]

Also, the line running down Victoria (west). Not much room in between Park st. and Lawrence, albeit it would be a one way line. I often wonder if the region/city is secretly buying properties along Victoria for future expansion, for road expansion at the very least.

I would prefer they not split the line like they did in Uptown and Downtown in phase 1 as it seems to be suggested by that early map. Charles and Duke are about 250m apart and I think that is too far apart; Victoria and Highland are >600m apart in places.

I think they could probably fit both directions of the line on Victoria. Most of Victoria is already wide enough, and even in that narrow section you have identified above, Lawrence to Park, the region actually already has a pretty wide right-of-way; it is 20.25m. Compare that to the typical right-of-way on King, say near KCI, and it is only 22.75m. So you are looking at a difference of 2.5m or 1.25m on each side. Literally slivers of land, just like it was along King. Hopefully they make better use of it than they did along King and include fully segregated and protected bike lanes.

Victoria @ Lawrence	King @ KCI

There would seem to be more redevelopment/intensification potential along Highland/Queen west of King, and more redevelopment/intensification potential along Victoria east of King. The Highland/Queen option could probably only ever be uni-directional without significant land takings as the narrowest points are only 17-18m of right-of-way.

It also makes me question why widening Victoria between Lawrence and Park was added to the Moving Forward plan for the 2018-2031 timeline if that very same plan has plans to rip that up not long after.

I agree that there is more potential for development/intensification along Highland/Queen. Maybe this is why Victoria is going to be widened. To account for future lane reductions on highland if they choose that route. I think a uni-directional line could work for a Victoria, Belmont, and Highland corridor. Accommodates garment street intensification with the commercial component of Highland. I'm surprised that 2.5m is the difference between the two, good eye.

[GtwoK]

Also, the line running down Victoria (west). Not much room in between Park st. and Lawrence, albeit it would be a one way line. I often wonder if the region/city is secretly buying properties along Victoria for future expansion, for road expansion at the very least.

I would prefer they not split the line like they did in Uptown and Downtown in phase 1 as it seems to be suggested by that early map. Charles and Duke are about 250m apart and I think that is too far apart; Victoria and Highland are >600m apart in places.

I think they could probably fit both directions of the line on Victoria. Most of Victoria is already wide enough, and even in that narrow section you have identified above, Lawrence to Park, the region actually already has a pretty wide right-of-way; it is 20.25m. Compare that to the typical right-of-way on King, say near KCI, and it is only 22.75m. So you are looking at a difference of 2.5m or 1.25m on each side. Literally slivers of land, just like it was along King. Hopefully they make better use of it than they did along King and include fully segregated and protected bike lanes.

Victoria @ Lawrence	King @ KCI

There would seem to be more redevelopment/intensification potential along Highland/Queen west of King, and more redevelopment/intensification potential along Victoria east of King. The Highland/Queen option could probably only ever be uni-directional without significant land takings as the narrowest points are only 17-18m of right-of-way.

It also makes me question why widening Victoria between Lawrence and Park was added to the Moving Forward plan for the 2018-2031 timeline if that very same plan has plans to rip that up not long after.

Another item mentioned in this same report — a change was made to the 2010 transportation master plan identifying this exact stretch of Victoria as being expended to 4 lanes. I believe it was on a 2031-2041 timeline. Such a change would most likely involve some considerable complete property expropriation, which would be a great time to also alot some of that to a potential Ion route

[Elmira Guy]

exactly !!  But they will say it only benefits part of Wolwhich township, so what part pays !!

To clarify ... Woolwich.

[panamaniac]

exactly !!  But they will say it only benefits part of Wolwhich township, so what part pays !!

To clarify ... Woolwich.

Is that "Wool-Witch" or "Wool-ich"?  (Seriously, I've heard both, although I've always (mis)pronounced it "Wool-witch".

[Lens]

ION Testing - Central 1 by Matt, on Flickr

[Elmira Guy]

To clarify ... Woolwich.

Is that "Wool-Witch" or "Wool-ich"?  (Seriously, I've heard both, although I've always (mis)pronounced it "Wool-witch".

From my experience, having been a " Woolwichian" or "Woolwichite" for much of my life, I have found most residents pronounce it 'wool-witch". Certainly how I have always pronounced it.

[timc]

Is that "Wool-Witch" or "Wool-ich"?  (Seriously, I've heard both, although I've always (mis)pronounced it "Wool-witch".

From my experience, having been a " Woolwichian" or "Woolwichite" for much of my life, I have found most residents pronounce it 'wool-witch". Certainly how I have always pronounced it.

Wha? I don't live in Woolwich, but I don't think I've ever heard the second "w". Only "Wool-itch".

[Coke6pk]

From my experience, having been a " Woolwichian" or "Woolwichite" for much of my life, I have found most residents pronounce it 'wool-witch". Certainly how I have always pronounced it.

Wha? I don't live in Woolwich, but I don't think I've ever heard the second "w". Only "Wool-itch".

I can only hear Laurel.

Coke

(Sorry, week old joke....)

[ijmorlan]

From my experience, having been a " Woolwichian" or "Woolwichite" for much of my life, I have found most residents pronounce it 'wool-witch". Certainly how I have always pronounced it.

Wha? I don't live in Woolwich, but I don't think I've ever heard the second "w". Only "Wool-itch".

Oh, not in Utica, no, it’s an Albany expression.