ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[timio]

Just spitballing some ideas here.

[Markster]

CTV's coverage.

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mobile/video...tPageNum=1

Nothing new, just reiteration of the well known delay that "mid-September" is not happening.

[KevinL]

I think Canard is letting this INSIDER information go to his head...

[Pheidippides]

3) The region didn't want to bite off a lot with contracts, so they shamefully went very spartan on service levels. Hopefully they improve, but if they keep them low, it'll drive down overall usage.
2) Partly an issue of being unable to plan for every tiny detail, possibly some American standards being used.
1) The station choice was political. The logical connection would be a stop in UpTown, a stop at University, a stop at Columbia, a stop at Bearinger. But the biggest issue there was perceived favouritism to UW, perceived to be getting 2 stations to none for WLU, so Seagram became WLU's station, even though the walking distance likely means many people will go to the UW one and transfer on a bus along University, a transfer that would be much quicker had the University/Columbia plan gone along. Additionally, the perception is that putting a station right in the Tech Park would be useful, but without the tech park stepping up to the plate with circulators and transit oriented design, this is already proving to be a waste.

Well in 2047 when it is time to refurbish the stations they can just build the ones they should have done in the first place at University, Columbia, Bearinger, and clay and glass gallery, then decommission RT, UW, Waterloo Park-WLU, Public Square and Willis.

[Canard]

I hope not, R+T Park is one of my favourites - and Ken Hall's "Network" hasn't even been installed yet.

(Why 2047? Are you extrapolating the 30-year life expectancy of embedded track to the stations as well?)

[ijmorlan]

I hope not, R+T Park is one of my favourites - and Ken Hall's "Network" hasn't even been installed yet.

(Why 2047?  Are you extrapolating the 30-year life expectancy of embedded track to the stations as well?)

Putting a station anywhere that the track is not straight is quite unlikely. There would have to be a truly overriding reason to make any change to the track alignment. For better or for worse the LRT alignment we have now will probably be with us for a century or more. Even if it gets removed due to self-driving cars or something (yeah, right!*), the route will still be visible for a long time afterward.

* The “yeah, right!” is about self-driving cars causing the LRT to be unnecessary. I won’t be at all surprised to see self-driving cars on the road, although I will be moderately surprised if they arrive in general use as soon as enthusiasts think.

[urbd]

I hope not, R+T Park is one of my favourites - and Ken Hall's "Network" hasn't even been installed yet.

Are you being sarcastic? R+T is one of the least community building stations in the whole line... it has a ton of potential, yes, but right now it is just one more suburban, non-descript office park. As many people have said, road-interacting stations  would've been way better at University and Columbia... also one adjacent to the Albert McCormick community centre would've served those neighbourhoods really well and support sensitive intensification.

[Canard]

I am not being sarcastic - I like the feel of the whole area. Biking through R&T Park feels futuristic to me. I like all the big modern buildings and grassy spaces. The station matches the feel very well.

[tomh009]

Biking through R&T Park feels futuristic to me. I like all the big modern buildings and grassy spaces.

Buildings (though not particularly tall) and grass are nice enough.  But they are surrounded by a sea of surface parking lots.

[Canard]

I'm okay with that too. Lot X for the University is pretty ridiculous though, even though I've parked there in the past. Maybe it could be repurposed somehow as a Park-and-Ride lot... something our system is sorely lacking.

I understand the vast majority of people here are looking at LRT for its functional purpose only - development, "community building" (whatever that is), and so on - but I'm not. I like it because it's a train, and I like trains. I don't really care about the other fluff but I keep my mouth shut and don't say anything. I also know I'm in a minority.

[jamincan]

It's also possible to like it for both reasons.

[ijmorlan]

I'm okay with that too. Lot X for the University is pretty ridiculous though, even though I've parked there in the past. Maybe it could be repurposed somehow as a Park-and-Ride lot... something our system is sorely lacking.

I understand the vast majority of people here are looking at LRT for its functional purpose only - development, "community building" (whatever that is), and so on - but I'm not. I like it because it's a train, and I like trains. I don't really care about the other fluff but I keep my mouth shut and don't say anything. I also know I'm in a minority.

I like trains too

I’ve been thinking there should be a streetcar (or something like it) along the spur line since I came here for university. It’s only more recently I learned more about the non-train-fan reasons to built LRT and other fixed-track transit systems.

[SammyOES2]

We don't want the LRT to go to office buildings?

That seems like one of the places we WANT it to go.  Getting people to commute by transit is the goal (imo), much more so then getting people to use it for ad-hoc trips.  A reliable option that goes directly to the place of work seems key - transfers suck.

(Edit: Sorry if I'm just misunderstanding the discussion.)

[jamincan]

I guess the problem is that the built-form in the R&T park is not conducive toward people using transit. So even though LRT comes within the vicinity of the offices there, people are less likely to use it to access the area due to the poor built form. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, though. Once you have higher-order transit, it's far more likely that development will occur at a density and in a form that is going to foster transit. On the other hand, without the proper built form, it's far less likely that transit use will increase to a point that would normally justify rapid-transit.

[MidTowner]

The configuration of the park will be a challenge, but reasonably direct and properly maintained walking paths can address that to some extent. I just hope that there is some density built directly adjacent to the station- it would be a wasted opportunity to construct more two-floor buildings in the spots where employees are mostly to take transit. Open Text employees are a lot less likely to use Ion than employees of a future building right next to the station- hopefully that future building is a large one.

It’s a shame that the Northfield Crossing building immediately adjacent to the Northfield station was only three floors, and the Cineplex building next door only one. That’s a real wasted opportunity.