ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Canard]

It's the prospect of doubled-up trains justifying 30 minute frequency in the evenings that grinds my gears.

Thisssssssssssssss s s s s s!

I will always say that, given an equal hourly capacity, little trains at high frequency > big trains at low frequency.

This is at the core of VAL and ICTS (and tramways, too, which can operate trains close together), and part of why I love them so much.

(I went to go insert a video I think I've shared before, showing sub-minute headways on the Lille VAL, but I think it's been removed from YouTube.)

[ijmorlan]

I really hate that argument.  If there's justification for running a train every 3 minutes, then those people *should* have priority over traffic.  If those people were instead in cars, then you'd really see traffic disruption.

When framed this way, I go buy a car.

Keep in mind that buses still need to use those intersecting roads. And line management becomes quite difficult at 3-minute headways without full separation. I don't want to see LRV bunches.

Personally, I'm fine with frequency topping out at 5-7 minutes, and the vehicles doubling up after that.
It's the prospect of doubled-up trains justifying 30 minute frequency in the evenings that grinds my gears.

My understanding is that our LRT will have full priority, i.e., will not normally encounter a stop signal. If this is true, then line management is not a problem — it’s the same as with full isolation. Given that, 3 minute service just means the traffic light must give a green to the LRT every 3 minutes in each direction, meaning the LRT significantly constrains the overall traffic light cycle. Because an LRV doesn’t take very long to clear the intersection, even 3 minute service will still leave lots of time for the cross street. If some extra traffic congestion results, that is really irrelevant, as pointed out — 3 minute service would be provided because 3600 people per hour are taking the LRT. It would be absurd to make those 3600 people wait for a few people in private cars. How many cars can fit through Erb and Caroline in an hour anyway? And in a situation where we had that level of transit ridership, I think having reserved lanes for buses on the cross streets should be achievable.

Having said all that, I’m OK with 5 minute frequency. But it really would be absurd to use 2-car trains to allow 30 minute instead of 15 minute service. It doesn’t make sense to spend as much on capital as it takes to build an LRT and then not fund operations properly.

I wonder when automatic driving will be considered reliable enough to run an LRV in or near traffic? It’s a way easier problem than the general automatic driving problem. That would allow higher frequency without increasing labour costs.

[KevinT]

I think the issue with every 5 minutes or 3 minutes is disruption of traffic.  If you think of the Courtland(Fairway) rail crossing, you'd basically see a train every 90 seconds (1 in either direction every 3 minutes).  I think 7 minutes is good for our region.

Cars block cars every 90 seconds all over the city, its called traffic lights.

If running a train every 3 minutes is justified then that means there's a helluvalot of people on those trains (if there weren't, then there'd be no reason to run them so often).  How is it that its okay for a few cars carrying 1.3 people each to block other cars every 90 seconds, but if a single train with 60 to 120 people in it blocks some cars it's a disruption?  The self-entitled mindset of car drivers really needs to change...

[Canard]

@ijmorlan: No city has attempted a Light Rail/Tramway system in an urban environment with crossings and so on automatically. Alstom has done some automated yard-movement stuff in Paris on an experimental basis, but that’s it.

There’s no need - headways can be as close as busses, almost, without automation. There is only a gain in big trains with large stopping distances. I think you are incorrectly extrapolating what is happening in Toronto on the subway to our LRT.

[ijmorlan]

@ijmorlan: No city has attempted a Light Rail/Tramway system in an urban environment with crossings and so on automatically. Alstom has done some automated yard-movement stuff in Paris on an experimental basis, but that’s it.

There’s no need - headways can be as close as busses, almost, without automation. There is only a gain in big trains with large stopping distances. I think you are incorrectly extrapolating what is happening in Toronto on the subway to our LRT.

I’m not extrapolating from Toronto. I’m extrapolating from the self-driving car news we see everywhere. If self-driving cars are really possible, then self-driving LRVs, including in mixed traffic, are definitely possible. While it wouldn’t be the best design, simply hooking up the self-driving car’s collision-avoidance system to the emergency brake and making it otherwise exactly like existing ATO systems would work as long as there was a way to disengage the emergency brake when the hazard condition no longer exists.

The fact that ATO is still seen as absolutely requiring total right-of-way separation is one of the reasons why I am skeptical about self-driving cars. But on the other hand, we see things like Uber placing an order for thousands of cars intended to be modified to be self-driving. News like that feels like more than a publicity stunt. So overall, I don’t feel confident in my ability to predict where the self-driving car story is going. But it is definitely much easier to make a self-driving LRT than a self-driving car.

And it does matter because labour is a significant cost. The only reason somebody would even suggest running 2-car trains every 30 minutes instead of single cars every 15 minutes is to save on labour. When the numbers get down to shorter headways then other issues such as line management and how often the crossings trigger come into play but at wider headways the only benefit of longer trains is reduced labour costs.

[danbrotherston]

...

The fact that ATO is still seen as absolutely requiring total right-of-way separation is one of the reasons why I am skeptical about self-driving cars. But on the other hand, we see things like Uber placing an order for thousands of cars intended to be modified to be self-driving. News like that feels like more than a publicity stunt. So overall, I don’t feel confident in my ability to predict where the self-driving car story is going. But it is definitely much easier to make a self-driving LRT than a self-driving car.

...

ATO requirements have zero to do with technology, and everything to do with policy, disregard them entirely in terms of the technological possibilities of self driving cars.

Self driving car technology is certainly within the realm of feasibility in the next 5-10 years minimum. Uber is definitely pulling a stunt, but looking at Google's (Waymo I guess) self driving car, it is very very good, I suspect already better than human drivers.

But the actual question is where the policy for self driving cars will go. Hopefully, it will keep safety as a top priority, but given the amount of money involved (literally tens of millions of jobs in the US alone), there's a huge amount of interest in this technology, and money makes the world go round.

Which is the actual issue facing society related to self driving cars, what will millions (at least) of out of work drivers do.

That's my 2c anyway.

Maybe they can drive LRT vehicles still governed by massively out of date regulations.

[kidgibnick]

World’s first "smart train" with virtual tracks launched in Hunan, China. Essentially, it's a guided, driverless, electric-bus disguised as a tram. Would have less disruptive than the ION too
https://youtu.be/Lqgvk6LWUDk
https://youtu.be/2i3aVMKBgFU

[Canard]

...and 20 years behind the game.

Has anyone spotted any LRV action along the Test Track or OMSF in the past week or so?

It’s been awfully quiet. Makes you wonder, eh?

[ijmorlan]

World’s first "smart train" with virtual tracks launched in Hunan, China. Essentially, it's a guided, driverless, electric-bus disguised as a tram. Would have less disruptive than the ION too
https://youtu.be/Lqgvk6LWUDk
https://youtu.be/2i3aVMKBgFU

Why do you think it would be less disruptive than the construction we experienced?

[Canard]

Can we please also discuss the Straddlebus? Because it would fit right in with where this is heading.

[ijmorlan]

Can we please also discuss the Straddlebus? Because it would fit right in with where this is heading.

Aerobus FTW!

[KevinL]

It's also drifting off topic - we already have a transit vehicles thread.

[Canard]

Yup, and some good news coming up!

[timio]

...Which you could share as you are a public citizen, not bound by confidentiality clauses...

Or continue to be coy and let people speculate about the hover buses the Region has budgeted for in fiscal year 2059. Just saying...

[DHLawrence]

Aww, I was hoping for catbuses!