ION Stage I: what would you do differently?

[tomh009]

That base64 post destroys my browser (Safari, OS X Big Sur, 2020 MBP). Can the unusable data be edited out by someone?

Done.

[tomh009]

Which is it, did we waste money or not spend enough?

I think we spent too much for what we got. We could have spent less and got close to the same, or more and got a system that would have been truly independent, not relying on the very roads we all claim to despise here, that goes just as slow as cars at times and has to stop at red lights to let them pass.

You make some good points in your post. And cut-and-cover is indeed cheaper -- but the costs of underground or elevated stations would have also been far higher than the fairly basic ones we have now. And accessibility would have been worse.

However, my main issue is the bolded portion above: the design of the system does not dictate the speeds we have today, nor does it require stopping at red lights. The system can be speeded up by relaxing speed limits and providing traffic light priority. And an elevated/buried system would still need the same amount of time for dwell times, deceleration and acceleration, though it might have been able to smooth out some turns to make them faster.

Summa summarum: As our population grows and the transit usage grows, our current LRT can certainly be made to run significantly faster -- and that's without any substantial additional capital investment.

[ac3r]

I think we spent too much for what we got. We could have spent less and got close to the same, or more and got a system that would have been truly independent, not relying on the very roads we all claim to despise here, that goes just as slow as cars at times and has to stop at red lights to let them pass.

Thanks for the detailed reply and the great pictures, I think I have a better idea of what you’re suggesting.

Part of my problem is that I’m significantly less enthusiastic about the system as it is operated than I am about it as a concept. A significant amount of the slowness has to do with how they’re operating it, essentially due to safety paranoia (although I’m not totally clear if the paranoia is from the system management or filtered through safety regulations, so I don’t know who would have to be convinced to change it).

Definitely. The concept isn't bad - a rapid transit system in a region of 625'00ish people - but they cut so many corners just to get it approved by the public and the government. It's slow and anyone arguing otherwise just sounds like a train foamer to me.

I agree it could go a lot faster and while I don't know the reason why it is so slow in certain parts...but safety seems like it might be the reason. After Block Line Station, it crawls along at a walking pace until it gets past the bends near Hayward. I was riding it downtown today and thought to myself, "yeah this is ridiculous, it's like they're afraid the train is going to tip over if it takes these turns faster than 5km/h". It could have been elevated past Block Line Station until it got to the train right of way and maintained a much faster speed. I mean, if we're so worried about costs, then why elevate so many sections of the route into Cambridge? A lot of it could be run at surface level, especially between Fairway and Sportsworld Stations (and I've seen people here ask why they are doing that when it could be run surface level, sans the bridges needed to cross the valley's and river). I've got all the CAD drawings for Phase 2 printed out on huge sheets of paper in my office since we're studying this and we've determined it could indeed be run within the traffic for many sections if they wanted, cutting out a good portion of the sections on elevated viaducts.

Even with my far fetched ideas, 85% of the LRT could continue the way it does. If it was intended to be rapid transit, as the name implies, we could have buried and elevated where needed through the cores, but we didn't and now it takes turns at the speed it does. Maybe it'll speed up a few kh/h with tweaks, but it has been operational for around a year and we haven't even considered it. I truly doubt anything will change at this point.

If safety is the issue, then look at where the only real problems have been thus far: where it intersects with traffic and drivers crash their cars into the thing. Pedestrians aren't getting run over, the only incidents are when someone in a car thinks "I can make the turn before it gets here". I am pretty certain almost all of the crashes have taken place downtown/uptown where the train mixes with traffic, with the exception of the one individual killed by it somewhere near Waterloo Park.

[ac3r]

I think we spent too much for what we got. We could have spent less and got close to the same, or more and got a system that would have been truly independent, not relying on the very roads we all claim to despise here, that goes just as slow as cars at times and has to stop at red lights to let them pass.

You make some good points in your post. And cut-and-cover is indeed cheaper -- but the costs of underground or elevated stations would have also been far higher than the fairly basic ones we have now. And accessibility would have been worse.

However, my main issue is the bolded portion above: the design of the system does not dictate the speeds we have today, nor does it require stopping at red lights. The system can be speeded up by relaxing speed limits and providing traffic light priority. And an elevated/buried system would still need the same amount of time for dwell times, deceleration and acceleration, though it might have been able to smooth out some turns to make them faster.

Summa summarum: As our population grows and the transit usage grows, our current LRT can certainly be made to run significantly faster -- and that's without any substantial additional capital investment.

For sure.

While buried or elevated sections would have cost more and accessibility would need to be taken into account, access to such stations would not be any different. All you need are ramps or extremely simple elevators to deal with that.

We'll surely need to improve speeds if we expect this portion of the LRT to be reasonably rapid as the city grows. I don't know why it's so slow either. However, there are parts that we'll never really get to speed up much at this point. It'll never make the turn from the train right of way onto Borden any faster, it'll never make the turn at Allen any faster, King to Waterloo Public Square nor at Northfield. These are the areas where I would have (with a bigger cheque book) said okay, let's cut and cover or elevate this so we don't have to worry about anything now or in the future. I even doubt they'll ever get it around Hayward faster than it goes now because those turns are very tight. Considering they could have bought that derelict, empty industrial lot that is there, they could have elevated the LRT there and ensured it went at a respectable speed.

Either way, it's too late to make any real changes. We can only hope they can make a few tweaks to improve speeds in certain sections. And I hope that any future lines they do they actually take the idea of true grade separation into consideration.

[Bytor]

You're assuming they'd use diesel. We are transitioning to electric buses now, with all new bus purchases (including the articulated ones) electric.

That transition will take a long time, and when this hypothetical alternate BRT would have been made it would have been all diesel. And even now, electric busses cost $4M each, compared to the $6-7M for a tram, and you need more electric busses than you need diesel busses because they only last for 4-6 hours, which significantly diminishes that portion of the cost advantage of a BRT, and will for many years to come.

And in any case, electric trams will still use less electricity per passenger than electric busses will. The efficiency ratios for electric car vs electric bus vs electric train will work out just like gasoline car vs. diesel bus vs. diesel train, with the larger vehicle being the most efficient per passenger, because physics.

And while electric busses won't require as many mechanics as diesel busses, all these busses they will still require more mechanics than the trams.

And, of course, you still need all the extra drivers.

And I think you're way overestimating how often they'd need to relace concrete pads. It would not be very often. I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

As I said, from the real world example of Charles St. Terminal and how often it had to be redone with all the traffic that went through it.

I no longer have the figures handy, but I do believe BRT was deemed to be cheaper, they just wanted to go with LRT.

Yeah, Well, I've given you a bunch of things. The extra drivers, the extra mechanics, the higher energy costs, the increased busway maintenance over time. You're just ignoring them.

[ac3r]

Yeah, Well, I've given you a bunch of things. The extra drivers, the extra mechanics, the higher energy costs, the increased busway maintenance over time. You're just ignoring them.

Lol, no. You keep keep giving numbers, but fail to cite your sources, specifically how whatever numbers you have relate to Waterloo Region in particular. You can't just write a wall of text and say that's that, withing pertinent studies relating to us. I'm not going to give any thought to statistics without sources, ideally sources that apply to us.

I get you like trains and the ION but if you're going to use numbers and data and spreadsheets, ensure they are applicable to us and not just random numbers you Google searched and are trying to apply to Waterloo Region. You just sound like a staunch defender of the ION that shoots down any argument against it.

BRT was going to be cheaper, but in my case I cannot provide numbers because of a legal clause as that information belongs to the Region of Waterloo whom I frequently work for. We went with LRT obviously. But the burden of proof is in yourself if you are going to keep claiming all options except the LRT as it is was preferable.

[nms]

I think that a cut and cover section, perhaps ducking underground south of Laurel Creek, at about Willis Way would have avoided the creek challenges plus the curves.  The only foundations that might have been in the way would have been the Bauer Lofts.

Keeping all the platforms together would have always been preferable, particularly for those infrequent users of the service who might have difficulty with different entry and exit stations.

[jamincan]

The planning reports are still out there, you can read them. The BRT was indeed deemed cheaper, but was projected to be insufficient for demand within 20 years of construction. There also wasn't loads of funding on the table at all. We though we could get 2/3 funding from the province and only got 1/3. That only came about after the decision was made to proceed with LRT in 2011.

ac3r - you seem to have a lot of really good insight when it comes to architecture and development, but you are confidently asserting a lot of things about the history of Ion LRT that are quite simply false. We deal with enough misinformation, it would be nice not to have this forum tainted by it.

[ijmorlan]

The planning reports are still out there, you can read them. The BRT was indeed deemed cheaper, but was projected to be insufficient for demand within 20 years of construction. There also wasn't loads of funding on the table at all. We though we could get 2/3 funding from the province and only got 1/3. That only came about after the decision was made to proceed with LRT in 2011.

Yes, the province needed the money to pay for useless subway tunnelling in Scarborough and Etobicoke. In fact, they needed so much for those locations that they’re planning to skimp on the Don Mills line to save a bit of money where a subway actually makes sense.

[Bytor]

Yeah, Well, I've given you a bunch of things. The extra drivers, the extra mechanics, the higher energy costs, the increased busway maintenance over time. You're just ignoring them.

You can't just write a wall of text and say that's that, withing pertinent studies relating to us.

Do you think that we're special snowflakes and that electric busses will magically cost less for us than other place? If not, then you need to address that. Why do I need to provide "studies" for this?

Do you think that we're special snowflakes and that these magic electric busses will also not require drivers? If not, then you need to address that. Why do I need to provide "studies" for this?

Do you think that the electric busses that the manufacturers say have a batter life of 4-6 hours will magically last as long as a diesel bus with a full tank of fuel? If not, then you need to address that. Why do I need to provide "studies" for this?

Do you think that electricity will magically cost so much more for a tram than diesel fuel for busses? If not, then you need to address that. Why do I need to provide "studies" for this?

Do you think that electric trams will magically be less efficient for us than electric busses and thus would your more electricity passenger? If not, then you need to address that. Why do I need to provide "studies" for this?

Do you think that busway will magically last as long as rail tracks tracks with as little maintenance, in spit of what Charles St Terminal showed? If not, then you need to address that. Why do I need to provide "studies" for this?

I have made no controversial statements. I haven't simply given you random numbers from Google. I haven't simply been shooting down "any" argument against ION LRT.

BRT was going to be cheaper, but in my case I cannot provide numbers because of a legal clause as that information belongs to the Region of Waterloo whom I frequently work for. We went with LRT obviously. But the burden of proof is in yourself if you are going to keep claiming all options except the LRT as it is was preferable.

I have pointed out some significant concerns, like the list above, relating to the cost of a BRT system, but instead of addressing them you just stick your fingers in your ears and go "nuh uh!". That and the falsehoods you state about what funding was available for when and for which mode. only to later walk back on with "I don't really remember" make it seem like you are not arguing in good faith.

Wish what you will, but evidence from the rest of North America shows that there is a threshold ridership level above which operations costs make it cheaper per passenger to operate. That is not controversial or disputed in transit planning. But if you want references, here, go read these. I don't expect you to, though, since you're unwilling to address things like higher staffing costs of requiring more drivers and/or mechanics, or the higher costs of diesel fuel, or how you'd need more electric busses than you would need diesel buses, or how electric busses cost 8x as much a diesel busses.

Bruun, E. (2005). Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail: Comparing Operating Costs with a Parametric Cost Model. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 1927 (11–21).

General Accounting Office [GAO]. (2001). Mass Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.

Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County [MTAHC]. (1999). The Houston Evaluation for Build Alternatives: Major Investment Study/Environmental Assessment. Houston, TX: MTHAC.

National Transit Database. (2007). TS 2.1: Service Data and Operating Expenses Time-Series by Mode. Washington, DC: National Transit Database, Federal Transit Adiministration.

[ac3r]

Do you think that we're special snowflakes...

Bruh I am not even going to entertain you any longer. You love the ION, I get it.

[Bytor]

The planning reports are still out there, you can read them. The BRT was indeed deemed cheaper, but was projected to be insufficient for demand within 20 years of construction. 

Given that ION had 14,000 riders a day on average, and higher on weekdays, from the get go, I doubt that it would have taken 20 years before it was insufficient.

In fact, given that we're talking abut a combined weekday boardings of 16,000 to 26,000 per weekday on average for the 200 and 7 (seasonally dependent), along with GRT annual growth anywhere from 5% to 10%, averaging at ~7%, I strongly suspect that a BRT system would have been insufficient within a decade. It certainly would have been well beyond the point where operations costs would have been higher than an LRT for the same number of passengers.

Here's a redo of a graph I've posted previously, with the 7's numbers added in. (The gap in the second half of 2017 is apparently because the Region had some sort data fault and lost  all those numbers.)

Tangentially, you can see that ION absorbed not only the 200's ridership from the north half, but also anywhere from half to two-thirds the 7's ridership as well. This would seem to mitigate against the claim that boardings are only up because the rearrangement of routes causes people transfer to the ION when before they would have stayed on a spoke route to get to DTK, for example, and now they have to transfer. Were that true, one would expect to see that the 7's boardings had stayed much higher with the ION still showing it's jump over the 200. Instead, the pattern we see would seem to indicate that a lot of people were taking 7 instead of the 200, probably because the 200 was less frequent and often delayed 5 minutes or more and therefore less convenient, and have now moved over.

[plam]

Do you think that we're special snowflakes...

Bruh I am not even going to entertain you any longer. You love the ION, I get it.

I mean, c'mon. You asked questions, you got answers (and references), and then you didn't engage.

[KevinT]

I'd have reconfigured things near GRH to reduce the number of signals (a reduction in cost).

Yes. Thank you. I am surprised this is not brought up more. There is a ridiculous amount of lights along what should be one of the fastest stretches of the LRT.

I consistently find that the LRVs I'm on get through that stretch unimpeded by any of those lights save the one coming out of the GRH stop heading southbound. The signal priority through here is almost uncanny.

It's a shame that drivers have to creep their LRVs up to the lights and then stop on the loop to trip the signals when coming out of the stations though, that wastes sooo much time. They should be able to activate them as they're closing the doors.

The Hayward jog is a constant snail show. I keep hoping it will improve after every weekend closure for signal work in that area, but it just doesn't. 

[Bjays93]

I'm in agreement with ac3r here. My biggest issue is grade separation. I understand that probably wasnt even on the radar for cost reasons, and thankfully theres some grade separation for the second phase like the fairway rd crossing.

The 3 most egregious intersections, are on wilson st right at the Fairview terminal, then just after that the crossing at courtland.

The northfield drive intersection is also pretty bad. Ideally away around those woulda been great. Burying it through Downtown kitchener would've been awesome but no one would've gone for that unfortunately.

My biggest problem with the speed overall is not the top speeds, but how many tight turns slow it down, I wish there were more gradual turns which would allow them to maintain a higher average speed