ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[MidTowner]

(since I can't see how E-bound traffic could run afoul of the train any more often than running afoul of W-bound traffic)

You're probably correct on this- but if the risk of a collision is the same, the impact of a collision is likely much worse. When a car is struck by another car, it's one thing; by a train, the outcome is likely to be much more serious.

[chutten]

I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm kind of shocked that in this day an age the thinking could possibly be "Let's just see how many people die before we fix it" for the cost of an illuminated sign.

I'm sorry, I forgot. Are we talking about cars, here? Or trains?

...okay, maybe that was a bit glib. But how many people die on intersections today? Maybe the stats we should be looking at are damageDollarsAndDeaths per 1000 people moving through an intersection?

Then I would hope even Houston's numbers with the trains are better than they were without.

I agree we can almost certainly do better. And if the cost is just for one or two (or a dozen) lousy lighted signs, then damn skippy we should already be doing this.

Interestingly (at least to me), simply by building and running ION we already _are_ doing this: spending money to move more people more safely. Which is the correct direction we should be moving on this.

[Markster]

Well, those "as required based on collisions" ones are in places where there is nothing "out of the ordinary" about the track alignment.  It's no different than a lane of regular traffic, except that it's a vehicle on rails instead of asphalt.

For the most part, one should be able to assume that cars will be able to handle themselves just as well around a fixed-track vehicle, as they would a non-fixed vehicle doing the same thing.

As you rightfully point out, the trains are not exactly the same as a regular vehicle, because they are quite heavy.  But how heavy are they? And how does that compare to what's on the roads already?

Toronto's new streetcars weigh about 48,200 kg (source)
The LRV we'll be getting is a little larger, maybe ~65,000 kg
Meanwhile tractor trailers are allowed to be 49,500 kg (source) in Ontario.

A collision between a car and an LRV will be roughly the same, in terms of energy, as one between a car and a tractor trailer.

Charles and King streets have been home to a lot of tractor trailer traffic. Was there an epidemic of vehicular collision deaths on those streets that I was unaware of? Or, more morbidly, what vehicular deaths we have had so far between trucks and cars on those streets are clearly established to be within accepted levels of the existing social contract that we are all signed up for by having cars and trucks on our streets at all.

Looking to Toronto, where they have similar vehicles already plying their streets, they do not have anything beyond the regular level of traffic accidents. Queens Quay, where they have a unique track alignment that lends itself to LRVs sideswiping (illegally-)left-turning cars (impacting into the driver's side, no less) I have yet to hear of a fatality, despite many reported collisions.

Is it suddenly so different, here in KW, now that this particular vehicle is fixed on a track that we necessarily need to restrict traffic movements more? Even beyond the amount they're already being restricted?

Personally, I already feel safer with LRVs than I would with tractor trailers. I can trust that they won't swerve. That the driver knows they're dealing with the safety of 100 passengers in addition to their own.

Everyone is going to have a different opinion on when something it just different enough that it starts to need special consideration, but I don't think this is it.

[Canard]

Well we hope we are - we don't have that data yet.  If ion kills 10 people per year but only 6 people per year died at those same intersections before service began, that's a step backward. I really hope that won't be the case, but we just don't know yet.

I don't know how widely reported pedestrian/cyclist and automobile collisions are, so it's really hard to gauge from the media where we stand today.  You don't hear about it all that often, though, except for high-profile cases like the Block Line Roundabout/GRT one.

Minneapolis just had a bad streak of 5 accidents in 10 days.

[ijmorlan]

Well, those "as required based on collisions" ones are in places where there is nothing "out of the ordinary" about the track alignment.  It's no different than a lane of regular traffic, except that it's a vehicle on rails instead of asphalt.

Indeed. I think there is a definite double standard around LRT safety. They have to be extra super safe, not just reasonably safe, in a way that is never required of anything related to ordinary road construction.

Having said that, I speculate that people have trouble really internalizing what it means to have a transit lane. I speculate that they don’t think of it as a traffic lane, so don’t properly check, explaining all those left-turn collisions that we see on YouTube. I wonder if a proper BRT would have the same problem.

Toronto's new streetcars weigh about 48,200 kg (source)
The LRV we'll be getting is a little larger, maybe ~65,000 kg
Meanwhile tractor trailers are allowed to be 49,500 kg (source) in Ontario.

I believe our vehicles will be almost identical to the Toronto streetcars. Certainly I understand that is the case with respect to overall size and length.

[Canard]

I've outlined all the technical differences many times throughout this thread between Toronto's heavily-customized FLEXITY Outlook vehicles and and Waterloo's standardized FLEXITY Freedom vehicles; I'd be happy to run through them again if anyone's interested.

I like how it's automatically the "driver's fault".* Many LRT accidents involve pedestrians and cyclists, too, who aren't paying attention, diddling on their phones or blasting their music in their headphones, unaware of anything going on in the world around them.

* - I fully realize and was simply pointing out that you singled out motorists, not cyclists and pedestrians. I'm aware that virtually all crashes involving trains are the fault of the person who gets hit. I know it's fun as a cyclist or pedestrian to always blame car drivers for everything but the fact is all 3 are the ones at fault, pedestrians and cyclists too. I can't think of any Light Rail accident in recent history, except the Muni crash, which was caused by LRV operator error (and even that one was medical related, I think). I just want people to be aware that Waterloo Region isn't somehow magically excempt from the crash curse that follows surface-rail technologies operating in roadways (LRT). If we had chosen an elevated technology, we would not be having this discussion. This is the technology we chose.)

[ijmorlan]

I've outlined all the technical differences many times throughout this thread between Toronto's heavily-customized FLEXITY Outlook vehicles and and Waterloo's standardized FLEXITY Freedom vehicles; I'd be happy to run through them again if anyone's interested.

I know there are differences involving gauge, doors on one vs. both sides, one vs. two cabs, and minimum turn radius. On top of this I assume identical floor plans will not be used and there will be smaller follow-on differences. But isn’t the overall length, width, and height very similar? It’s not clear to me what would account for a substantial difference in weight.

[Canard]

To the casual user, yes, they'll look and feel almost identical, except for the design of the nose/tail (since our trains are bi-directional). Seating arrangement is the same (but we get a bit of extra width, in the form of wider aisles).

(To a transit fan the differences are much deeper.)

[Viewfromthe42]

The point being that from a crash perspective, someone cheating on a left turn hanging on tracks in a car, or blowing across the rails on a bike, or not looking while crossing rails as a pedestrian, and getting hit by a TTC Streetcar vs. ION LRV will not likely experience any appreciable difference, one collision from the other.

[Canard]

Oh absolutely, but the speeds are much lower in Toronto, both for the streetcars and the traffic around them. Our system is much closer to other Light Rail systems, not other streetcar systems.

[Viewfromthe42]

I thought that in areas where cars were nearby (most of the route), ION was to be limited to their speed limit, much as TTC streetcars follow posted signs (whether traffic always lets them get up to that speed is another matter). Indeed though, a cyclist choosing a poor point to cross the tracks between UpTown and UW, or UW and Northfield, to them it would be a much more damaging collision, given the higher speeds attained there.

[Markster]

I believe our vehicles will be almost identical to the Toronto streetcars. Certainly I understand that is the case with respect to overall size and length.

The difference in weight I had was based on an assumption that they were a bit longer than the TTC streetcar variant. I could very well have misremembered. Bombardier's website is fairly sparse on data for the exact variant we'll be getting.  If they are the same length, then they will be of comparable weight, meaning the comparison with a tractor trailer holds even better.

[chutten]

Having said that, I speculate that people have trouble really internalizing what it means to have a transit lane. I speculate that they don’t think of it as a traffic lane, so don’t properly check, explaining all those left-turn collisions that we see on YouTube. I wonder if a proper BRT would have the same problem.

Well, how many traffic lanes with traffic coming up from behind are there to your left when you're making a left turn? None, I hope. I mean you're not making a left turn from the any lane but the leftmost, are you? (in Canada)

In the (near!) future, you might have one train lane to your left that does come up from behind you, adjacent to you, on parts of the system where the trains are in the middle of the road instead of the edges.

Drivers aren't necessarily used to shoulder-checking to the left when making a left turn, which I always presumed was the cause of those frequent left-turn collisions. (which in turn I presumed were the reasons for changing some streets along the corridor into right-in-right-out-exclusives)

[clasher]

Why not have a barrier on the left turn lane that comes down when a train approaches in that case, to at least keep the driver from turning into the train's path? Heavy rail seems to have the whole gate thing figured out and it seems to help reduce collisions.

[chutten]

Why not have a barrier on the left turn lane that comes down when a train approaches in that case, to at least keep the driver from turning into the train's path? Heavy rail seems to have the whole gate thing figured out and it seems to help reduce collisions.

Because this light rail is running lengthwise through an intersection, not crossing a street.

If you put down a barrier between your car and the tracks, you have now trapped opposing left-turning traffic on the tracks. Barriers on heavy rail crossings are only on the upstream side so you don't suffer this problem.

I may have misunderstood you. Upon reading it again, you propose a barrier on the traffic lane. Like an arm that comes down over the stop line? That wouldn't have my stated problem, and would suffer only from the problems of heavy rail crossing barriers.

That being said, our light rail is going to be much more frequent and short than heavy rail, so I wonder if the economics of it don't work out or something...