Waterloo Region Connected
ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (http://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit (/showthread.php?tid=683)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 06-19-2017

The delays of streetcars in Toronto and of the clogged-up BRT system in Ottawa's downtown (less than 5% of system length) should be proof enough for anyone that even small segments of mixed-use have to be incredibly carefully considered.


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 06-19-2017

(06-19-2017, 08:19 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The delays of streetcars in Toronto and of the clogged-up BRT system in Ottawa's downtown (less than 5% of system length) should be proof enough for anyone that even small segments of mixed-use have to be incredibly carefully considered.

I think an important consideration is how much non-LRT traffic there would be. In the Gold Coast situation, it looks like there isn’t much traffic, so the interference with LRT is insignificant. Just giving up on transit priority for a few blocks through the core and allowing the LRT to be delayed by congested traffic would be a mistake however. It has also occurred to me that short-turn loops or the like could use minor streets if that were convenient. Of course, this is less relevant in a system with reversible vehicles that can just use a crossover.


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - Bob_McBob - 07-05-2017

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1160766

Sorry for the video link, the text version isn't up. Cambridge city council passed a motion opposing the route through Preston last night, in response to the NIMBY campaign.


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - Bob_McBob - 07-05-2017

Here's a text article:

https://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news-story/7406690-city-council-endorses-lrt-opposes-region-s-preferred-route-into-cambridge/

Quote:Mycyk brought forward an alternative he’d like to see considered.

It would pass by the Toyota Manufacturing plant and other industries, following the CP line, with a stop at Sportsworld. From there, the line would run elevated along Highway 401 and cross over to the Smart Centre big box area at Hespeler and Pinebush roads. It would then go along Conestoga Boulevard to Can-Amera Parkway and on to Hespeler Road, skirt Dumfries Conservation Area and take the abandoned railway line to Cambridge Memorial Hospital.

At that point it would follow the grade separation at Hespeler Road into the Norfolk Avenue area, under the CP tracks and along the walkway into downtown Galt and the Ainslie Street terminal.

“We have an opportunity to do something really, really unique,” he said, noting the suggested route runs through the city’s industrial area in the north, allows for “no major expropriation” and connects with shortlisted sites for the planned recreation multiplex. “People will see this and they will see there’s something progressive going on here.”



RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - Markster - 07-05-2017

I think it should be noted that suggestion comes from Terry Mycyk, of the Stop the LRT Through Preston group.
Here's what I think he is describing:

[attachment=3939]

I'm sure the MTO will have no concerns with the elevated-in-median LRT on the freshly rebuilt 401.


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - dunkalunk - 07-05-2017

Trying to put a rapid transit corridor along side a major infrastructure corridor such as the 401 is hardly unique as a cost-saving measure. People generally do not like living directly next to highways, especially when that Highway corridor runs through a whole bunch of floodplain. The maximum speed of our Light Rail trains is 90 km an hour. Unless the route is going to be making frequent stops along the 401 to serve all the new development that's maybe going up directly next to the 401 (which it's not) I don't think using the 401 is a right-of-way is the best idea for LRT.

Great idea for BRT though. Confused


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - dunkalunk - 07-05-2017

(07-05-2017, 02:53 PM)Markster Wrote: I think it should be noted that suggestion comes from Terry Mycyk, of the Stop the LRT Through Preston group.
Here's what I think he is describing:



I'm sure the MTO will have no concerns with the elevated-in-median LRT on the freshly rebuilt 401.

Wait, it's supposed to be elevated in the median? How is it even feasible to raise the line 20 m from where it crosses under the 401 to elevated above it?


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - Markster - 07-05-2017

(07-05-2017, 03:05 PM)dunkalunk Wrote: Wait, it's supposed to be elevated in the median? How is it even feasible to raise the line 20 m from where it crosses under the 401 to elevated above it?

Anything is possible when the alternative is terrible trains in your neighbourhood.


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - dunkalunk - 07-05-2017

Rumbling on past destroying many homes south of King St. Choo choo.


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 07-05-2017

I like when rapid transit runs down the middle of highways, like in Chicago and DC. When you're driving and stuck in traffic, you see the trains zip by and think "Hmm, I should ride that instead". When you're on-board, you look out and think "Yep, I made the right choice today."

It's also using an already-used big swath of land, so no taking is required. I think it's very worth exploring, as much as I think elevated LRT is stupid (should be another technology at that point which requires less material, ie, Monorail).


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - panamaniac - 07-05-2017

(07-05-2017, 03:15 PM)Markster Wrote:
(07-05-2017, 03:05 PM)dunkalunk Wrote: Wait, it's supposed to be elevated in the median? How is it even feasible to raise the line 20 m from where it crosses under the 401 to elevated above it?

Anything is possible when the alternative is terrible trains in your neighbourhood.

At a cost of how many tens of millions of additional dollars?


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 07-05-2017

(07-05-2017, 03:32 PM)Canard Wrote: I like when rapid transit runs down the middle of highways, like in Chicago and DC.  When you're driving and stuck in traffic, you see the trains zip by and think "Hmm, I should ride that instead". When you're on-board, you look out and think "Yep, I made the right choice today."

It's also using an already-used big swath of land, so no taking is required.  I think it's very worth exploring, as much as I think elevated LRT is stupid (should be another technology at that point which requires less material, ie, Monorail).

I'm not denying these aesthetic points, but for the purpose of intensifying development a highway is generally a poor choice for rapid transit. On just one point, the station access tends to be more difficult.


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 07-05-2017

(07-05-2017, 03:32 PM)Canard Wrote: I like when rapid transit runs down the middle of highways, like in Chicago and DC.  When you're driving and stuck in traffic, you see the trains zip by and think "Hmm, I should ride that instead". When you're on-board, you look out and think "Yep, I made the right choice today."

It's also using an already-used big swath of land, so no taking is required.  I think it's very worth exploring, as much as I think elevated LRT is stupid (should be another technology at that point which requires less material, ie, Monorail).

Short sections of elevated LRT where needed on a mostly not-elevated LRT line are definitely not stupid. This is exactly what LRT can do that monorail can’t — be part of the street in many areas, but elevate in places where that gives a big advantage. I agree monorail can make sense when most of a substantial system would need to be elevated anyway.

I guess monorail actually can be at-grade, but doing so requires total separation between the monorail and adjacent uses. No level crossings possible.

That’s not to say that I think elevated in the median of the 401 (or anywhere else) is a good idea for our system, because I suspect it is far from cost-effective, but it can be good in some places. I understand the Crosstown LRT in Toronto will be elevated at the west end of the current project for a short stretch.


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 07-05-2017

(07-05-2017, 03:29 PM)dunkalunk Wrote: Rumbling on past destroying many homes south of King St. Choo choo.

I’d rather listen to trains rumble than Cantabrigians grumble.


RE: ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 07-05-2017

(07-05-2017, 03:57 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:  I understand the Crosstown LRT in Toronto will be elevated at the west end of the current project for a short stretch.

To cross the Black Creek valley, yes. It's similar to how the Bloor line crosses the Humber valley on a bridge by Old Mill station.