ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[tomh009]

How does Helsinki do it so much cheaper?

Including the service depot and the rolling stock the Raide-Jokeri somewhere around 580M euros, about C$870M at current exchange rates. That's somewhere between C$35 and C$41 per kilometre depending on how you count (the line is 25 km but only 21 km is LRT, the remaining 4 km is effectively tramway at a lower cost). This

Interestingly, this is roughly half the cost of the Tampere LRT, also built in Finland and around the same timeframe; that one cost about 470M euros for 10.2 km, or around C$75M/km.

I don't know what causes such a big difference in costs.

[Momo26]

Many are getting caught up on this notion that "people don't think Cambridge deserves an LRT"

It's not about deserves or doesnt deserve...its about doing a cost benefit analysis. We won't be in this sort of construction limbo forever (at least I hope not), but a cambridge LRT is not guaranteed to bring a billion dollars+ of development like the phase 1 iON did, during a different climate. Even then, the landscape looks different but I cannot say it has completely transformed dtk into a hustling bustling vibrant place (I have discussed this numerous times before). Nor can I park my car and take my family on the ION- it is not realistic, feasible or practical in any which way (2 buses just to get to it, remember).

What makes the most sense for Cambridge? Maybe rapid buses. Half size ones, small ones, big ones...revamping the entire bussing routes...there are other options to consider.

[ac3r]

The beloved street running train got hit once again at King and Agnus. That intersection seems to account for a huge percentage of crashes.

Great design.

[Acitta]

An article in the Atlantic starts off with this paragraph, "Mass transit in the United States lacks mass appeal. In a 2024 study of data from nearly 800 cities, Asian urban residents used public transit for 43 percent of trips; 24 percent of Western Europeans in cities did the same. In American cities, the figure was less than 5 percent."

[nms]

An article in the Atlantic starts off with this paragraph, "Mass transit in the United States lacks mass appeal. In a 2024 study of data from nearly 800 cities, Asian urban residents used public transit for 43 percent of trips; 24 percent of Western Europeans in cities did the same. In American cities, the figure was less than 5 percent."

I couldn't tell from my albeit quick read of the study, but it would be interesting to see if there has been any shift in North American transit habits have changed in the last 20 years or so since there has been incremental investment in transit and active transportation improvements (at least in Waterloo Region's case). If 20 years ago, the number was 4% and today it's 5%, that's a big proportional increase. Over time, the incremental improvements will add up and suddenly driving isn't the default transportation mode.

[ac3r]

Does anyone know why they've bolted black plastic strips on the platforms at Fairway? They're similar to the yellow ones with bumps they have for blind people, but these aren't sunk into the concrete. They're slippery in the rain and serious tripping hazards.

[KevinL]

Does anyone know why they've bolted black plastic strips on the platforms at Fairway? They're similar to the yellow ones with bumps they have for blind people, but these aren't sunk into the concrete. They're slippery in the rain and serious tripping hazards.

Per GRT on Facebook,

Installation of a new tactile pathway on bus and train platforms at Fairway Station is ongoing until early November. We’re testing tactile wayfinding at Fairway and Conestoga stations as part of work we’re undertaking to make our stations more accessible.

[plam]

An article in the Atlantic starts off with this paragraph, "Mass transit in the United States lacks mass appeal. In a 2024 study of data from nearly 800 cities, Asian urban residents used public transit for 43 percent of trips; 24 percent of Western Europeans in cities did the same. In American cities, the figure was less than 5 percent."

I couldn't tell from my albeit quick read of the study, but it would be interesting to see if there has been any shift in North American transit habits have changed in the last 20 years or so since there has been incremental investment in transit and active transportation improvements (at least in Waterloo Region's case).  If 20 years ago, the number was 4% and today it's 5%, that's a big proportional increase.  Over time, the incremental improvements will add up and suddenly driving isn't the default transportation mode.

The University of Waterloo Sustainable Transportation people feel like they haven't made headway on shifting modeshare over the past 20 years. They would really like to---but then the question is how empowered are they to make the actual changes that are needed.

[ZEBuilder]

I couldn't tell from my albeit quick read of the study, but it would be interesting to see if there has been any shift in North American transit habits have changed in the last 20 years or so since there has been incremental investment in transit and active transportation improvements (at least in Waterloo Region's case).  If 20 years ago, the number was 4% and today it's 5%, that's a big proportional increase.  Over time, the incremental improvements will add up and suddenly driving isn't the default transportation mode.

The University of Waterloo Sustainable Transportation people feel like they haven't made headway on shifting modeshare over the past 20 years. They would really like to---but then the question is how empowered are they to make the actual changes that are needed.

If they keep developing on the parking lots they certainly will, you can only drive if you've got a place to park. The key to that however is to not expand parking lots (like they did with Lot A) or building any parking garage. Once you do that you'll make driving more difficult and will inevitably get a switch in mode share.

In reality as a society we just need to make parking and driving more difficult to get a significant switch. One could tax parking lots to a degree that it hurts to have acres of parking which would incentivize the removal of parking for other uses. The other way would be putting a strict cap on the number of parking spaces with zoning, instead of minimums which create acres of unused parking (look at Sunrise Centre for example). Both of those would force different mode share because no ones going to be glued to their cars once you make something difficult.

[plam]

The University of Waterloo Sustainable Transportation people feel like they haven't made headway on shifting modeshare over the past 20 years. They would really like to---but then the question is how empowered are they to make the actual changes that are needed.

If they keep developing on the parking lots they certainly will, you can only drive if you've got a place to park. The key to that however is to not expand parking lots (like they did with Lot A) or building any parking garage. Once you do that you'll make driving more difficult and will inevitably get a switch in mode share.

In reality as a society we just need to make parking and driving more difficult to get a significant switch. One could tax parking lots to a degree that it hurts to have acres of parking which would incentivize the removal of parking for other uses. The other way would be putting a strict cap on the number of parking spaces with zoning, instead of minimums which create acres of unused parking (look at Sunrise Centre for example). Both of those would force different mode share because no ones going to be glued to their cars once you make something difficult.

Yep. Zurich has a decreasing number of parking spots allowed in the centre. There are still a fair number of cars, or at least there were 10 years ago, but they're not that convenient.

[ijmorlan]

The University of Waterloo Sustainable Transportation people feel like they haven't made headway on shifting modeshare over the past 20 years. They would really like to---but then the question is how empowered are they to make the actual changes that are needed.

They should start by charging for parking in a sensible way.

Get rid of the massive discount for people who have monthly passes, and stop charging per day. In the per-day lots, one pays the same to be there all day as to arrive at 6PM when it’s emptying out and staying for an hour. If one has a parking pass, one cannot save money by driving fewer days unless one goes down to parking less than half of all days*. Also there is a free lot that reliably fills up on class days in Fall and Winter terms (so why is it free?).

Just charge using approximately the same scheme as SFPark, with rates depending on the specific demand in different times and places. Build structured parking if it would pay for itself (including some reasonable calculation of land rent to reflect the inability to build something else while the structured parking is there).

As far as I’m concerned, “Sustainable Transportation” is a great example of the Yes Minister idea of getting the difficult bit out of the way in the title.

* Daily parking $7.25; Monthly permit: $62.00 or 8.5 days worth assuming 20 days per month. So as a monthly permit holder to save money by not driving all the time, one must drop down to 8 days driving per month before the daily rate is cheaper. Many more people could easily reduce their parking demand by only driving certain days of the week than can easily reduce demand by rarely or never driving.

[danbrotherston]

The University of Waterloo Sustainable Transportation people feel like they haven't made headway on shifting modeshare over the past 20 years. They would really like to---but then the question is how empowered are they to make the actual changes that are needed.

They should start by charging for parking in a sensible way.

Get rid of the massive discount for people who have monthly passes, and stop charging per day. In the per-day lots, one pays the same to be there all day as to arrive at 6PM when it’s emptying out and staying for an hour. If one has a parking pass, one cannot save money by driving fewer days unless one goes down to parking less than half of all days*. Also there is a free lot that reliably fills up on class days in Fall and Winter terms (so why is it free?).

Just charge using approximately the same scheme as SFPark, with rates depending on the specific demand in different times and places. Build structured parking if it would pay for itself (including some reasonable calculation of land rent to reflect the inability to build something else while the structured parking is there).

As far as I’m concerned, “Sustainable Transportation” is a great example of the Yes Minister idea of getting the difficult bit out of the way in the title.

* Daily parking $7.25; Monthly permit: $62.00 or 8.5 days worth assuming 20 days per month. So as a monthly permit holder to save money by not driving all the time, one must drop down to 8 days driving per month before the daily rate is cheaper. Many more people could easily reduce their parking demand by only driving certain days of the week than can easily reduce demand by rarely or never driving.

Free parking is a remarkably universal point of contention. The municipality here started charging for parking in more core areas (parking is still completely free in our suburb here), the response has been apoplectic. And this is in a city where you pay for transit, and pay a lot for transit, and where driving is 100% optional.

I've even had conversations with people. "I pay for transit, don't you think it's reasonable that you also pay a little bit for parking? The city has to spend money to build and pay for the parking spaces after all." Response: "Yeah, that's all true, but I still don't think I should have to pay." "Okay, what other things should be free"..." Just parking".

This isn't hyperbole, this is an actual conversation. Cars break people's brains. I don't know why.

[creative]

I like many people drive for convenience. Time is my most valuable asset and I am willing to pay for that. I used to work in the tech park. I could drive there in 15 minutes or take 60 minutes by transit. Probably longer then as the ION had not been built. I was able to spend more time with my family plus I volunteer coached youth basketball for 25 years, 3 nights a week and would never had been home in time to do that. What works for some people does not work for everyone. More frequent transit would not have really helped plus I live 3 minutes to the expressway which gets me to Waterloo conveniently.

[MidTowner]

I'm attending an event at UW tomorrow. The organizer (a government entity) sent out an e-mail today with parking passes to be printed out, and detailed directions to the venue on campus.

No mention of transit.

Terrible.

[danbrotherston]

I'm attending an event at UW tomorrow. The organizer (a government entity) sent out an e-mail today with parking passes to be printed out, and detailed directions to the venue on campus.

No mention of transit.

Terrible.

Yeah. These kinds of things are funny. 

I remember I emailed the organizers of the wonders of winter light display in the park and offered to write them transit directions to put on their site and they did. 

On the other hand I went to some climate or transportation related government event and it was hosted at bingemans which is actually unsafe to get to without a car. (At least it was at the time. No sidewalk).