Waterloo Region Connected

Concrete is essentially rigid, which is great when you have a (relativley) lightweight vehicle on it. It doesn't need to flex.

A freight train, however, is very heavy. The tracks actually flex under the weight of the train as it rolls over. So too does the pavement.

Embedding tracks that would be suitable for a freight train to go over would require an astronomical amount of concrete. I can't think of anywhere where I've seen that done. It's just not an industry standard at all. This is why all the rail crossings along the spur lines use deck plates with the ballasted track continuing underneath, not embedded track.

You can rip up the pavement pretty easily and re-tamp, too - and then lay down more pavement over top. That can be done quickly and economically - like re-doing some drywall. It may appear like a lot of work, but it's actually pretty cheap, and all the tools are in place to handle it.

Another point is the transitions - going from ballasted to embedded (or back) is very tricky. Even for the LRVs, there's a complex foundation under the ballast that steps up, shallowing the ballast as it approaches the fully embedded section. If they didn't have that, there would be a very difficult to maintain transition between the "Spongy" ballasted track and the "rigid" embedded track. The significantly higher mass of a freight train would pummel that into a massive speed bump in no time.

Last week on my tour I noticed the big streetlights or extra lights on King, Charles are removed.

Confirmed there will be no ION Tracker webpage this time around. But, updates will be provided on Social Media.

So I was just at Waterloo Square and I looked over the track situation a bit. Thre's a curb at the edge of the parking lot and then the freight tracks are at the higher level, with the concreted LRT tracks flush with that asphalt.

The best solution seems to be a low fence or railing along that curb (they could even tie into the railing at the Famoso patio). This gives a clear visual barrier to passage and delineates things in an intuitive way.

But we don't actually know that it's not intended to be driven on! It may actually be a lane. Nobody knows for sure, as far as I am aware!

Also Kevin, the track changes level. It's raised, as you say, at one end... but it's flush at the other.

It's flush beyond the LRT platform, I'm only proposing the railing along there. Signage or something else would be needed for the flush part, I suppose.

So a railing between the LRT tracks and freight tracks, right?

No, between freight and parking. Thus if a person finds themself on tracks with an approaching vehicle, they can safely move to the other tracks (no matter the scenario).

Do we officially yet what the design intent is with the paved track section?

I think I'll email the project team and ask.

There is a barrier curb at the other end of the tracks blocking the parking lot, it is clearly not intended to be driven on.

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1215705

Interview with Tom, including the first talk of an actual opening Month - May, 2018!

(09-22-2017, 01:04 PM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]So I was just at Waterloo Square and I looked over the track situation a bit. Thre's a curb at the edge of the parking lot and then the freight tracks are at the higher level, with the concreted LRT tracks flush with that asphalt.

The best solution seems to be a low fence or railing along that curb (they could even tie into the railing at the Famoso patio). This gives a clear visual barrier to passage and delineates things in an intuitive way.

That would block pedestrian access to the southeast corner of the parking lot. They would either have to walk around the north end of the buildings on King, or walk to the far west end of the LRT platform. There needs to be a crossing between that corner of the parking lot and the public square, as there is de facto right now.

The real problem is that the design is a screw-up.

The real problem is that we don't know what the design intent is!! We can't criticize the design until we understand that.

(09-22-2017, 03:36 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]There is a barrier curb at the other end of the tracks blocking the parking lot, it is clearly not intended to be driven on.

Also a space meant to be driven on by vehicular traffic would never be at the top of a tall curb. A road that is above whatever is immediately around it would always have a curb or a shoulder with some sort of barrier.

(09-22-2017, 08:27 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]The real problem is that we don't know what the design intent is!!  We can't criticize the design until we understand that.

I don’t need to know the design intent to know that it does not take into account obvious needs of people using the area.

This reminds me of a similar situation with our student registration system at the University of Waterloo. I once commented unfavourably on the way the menu structure worked for students, which involved multiple levels of single-choice menus. Somebody said that basically it had to be that way because some users have more options in those menus. Uh, nope, the interface for students is inconvenient and doesn’t make sense; it doesn’t matter why or if the same interface works fine for certain staff members.