ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

And it's not really comparable. The number of aircraft in use is far lower, the pilots are highly trained and certified, flying time per day is limited, and traffic is directed by highly professional air traffic control, all things that would not be feasible for private vehicles.

Fatalities per million passenger-miles are about 10x for road traffic as compared to air traffic. So, even by that metric, and ignoring the fundamental differences (as above), it's nowhere near "a million times".

And I never said that we couldn't improve. I'm not sure that air traffic regulation is the absolute best place to learn, though.

These are literally all FAA regulations, if our road safety regulations required highly trained operators and certified drivers on each vehicle, controlled by traffic control, we'd see far safer roads.

And before those things were in force for flying, I imagine someone would have said "that's infeasible".

As for statistics, maybe you're right, but I'd love to see a source. But still, a 10x safety improvement isn't anything to scoff at...you'd be talking about thousands of lives in Canada, and millions worldwide.

I'm really surprised to see poeple arguing that the FAA (and other regulatory bodies) haven't been effective in making air travel safe.

[tomh009]

I'm saying that the 737Max is not the exception that proves the rule. The 737Max demonstrates a systemic failure of the FAA's regulatory function and to say that it is merely an exception in an otherwise functional system is extremely naïve.

Certainly the 737Max is not the first aircraft to have an airworthyness directive issued, but I think it's absurd to argue that the FAA's regulatory funciton is a failure, systemic or otherwise.

The 737 MAX certification indeed suffered from a systemic failure, unlike earlier aircraft. There is a tone of reading available for this. You can start with the Wikipedia page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737...tification

[Bob_McBob]

A couple more from the region's finest political cartoonist at the Woolwich Observer...

"Other priorities mean the region has pushed off talk of an Elmira bypass route for at least a couple of decades."



[No caption]

[westwardloo]

As much as I hate the observers anti LRT cartoons. I grew up in Elmira, and I understand their point. I do think that a by-pass is needed. Downtown Elmira hasn't been a good destination for shopping in my lifetime, but it is made even worse by the constant tractor trailer traffic zooming through it. Obviously this would divert some traffic from Arthur Street that might stop and shop, but I would hazard a guess most people shopping in downtown Elmira are from Elmira or the surrounding farms.

[danbrotherston]

As much as I hate the observers anti LRT cartoons. I grew up in Elmira, and I understand their point. I do think that a by-pass is needed. Downtown Elmira hasn't been a good destination for shopping in my lifetime, but it is made even worse by the constant tractor trailer traffic zooming through it. Obviously this would divert some traffic from Arthur Street that might stop and shop, but I would hazard a guess most people shopping in downtown Elmira are from Elmira or the surrounding farms.

I certainly support a bypass but I got the sense the opposition to a bypass was strictly within Elmira.

[Bytor]

As much as I hate the observers anti LRT cartoons. I grew up in Elmira, and I understand their point. I do think that a by-pass is needed. Downtown Elmira hasn't been a good destination for shopping in my lifetime, but it is made even worse by the constant tractor trailer traffic zooming through it. Obviously this would divert some traffic from Arthur Street that might stop and shop, but I would hazard a guess most people shopping in downtown Elmira are from Elmira or the surrounding farms.

I certainly support a bypass but I got the sense the opposition to a bypass was strictly within Elmira.

Well, look what the Charles/Duke loop did to DTK. That may only have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but we're still recovering from it today.

[tomh009]

I certainly support a bypass but I got the sense the opposition to a bypass was strictly within Elmira.

Well, look what the Charles/Duke loop did to DTK. That may only have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but we're still recovering from it today.

The city was considering ways to rejuvenate the downtown long before they made Charles and Duke into one-way streets. It sure didn't help but that was not the root of the issue -- suburban sprawl and shopping malls were a much bigger factor in the original decline. And, as we have seen, once the downward spiral starts, it's awfully hard to reverse.

[trainspotter139]

Wishful thinking?

I mean, I honestly do not understand the purpose of the restriction there...it's ridiculous...but I'm not a railway engineer, so I'm sure there's a good reason why a train can't do more than a jogging pace through an entirely segregated straight right of way next to a track where trains go four times the speed in the opposite direction.

Maybe there is something wrong with the track? It’s hard to imagine what would require such an extreme slowdown.

A similar case previously occurred on the southbound track approaching Erb St. They would slow to a crawl ahead of the switch for the freight crossover, then speed up a little before slowing down as they approached the crossing at Erb. I actually watched one and the slowdown appeared to be intended to apply to the switch itself, so I suspect there was an issue with the switch. What it was I can’t imagine; and if they were concerned about the switch not switching properly or staying in the proper location I think a better approach would have been to send out a crew every morning to clamp or bolt it in the LRT operating position, then reverse the procedure before the freight went through in the evening. But regardless, eventually it was fixed and while they still proceed rather slowly through the Erb St. crossing they at least approach it at a somewhat more reasonable speed.

Although a lot of this stuff is somewhat mysterious. I recently watched a video discussing an incident in Britain where a passenger train went through a slow order 100mph over the limit, at full track speed of about 125mph rather than the slow limit of 25mph (numbers might be slightly off, but not hugely off; it went through at 5 times the speed limit). It was a temporary slow order, not a curve or something like that. What is weird is that the limit for freight trains was 125mph! Indeed, the signage, with two numbers on it, one for passenger and one for freight, was a factor in the incident. I don’t understand how passenger trains could need to slow to 25mph while it’s still considered perfectly safe for freight to blow through at 125mph.

There's nothing wrong with the track there that is limiting the speed. It is, in fact, entirely based on the limitations of ATP. ATP is entirely limited by the human driver factor. Had we gone with an ATC system (which is much more expensive to implement) like what is being done on Line 5 Eglinton in Toronto that large section of crawling along at 15 km/h wouldn't exist since ATC essentially drives the train in ATC enabled sections. The curve speed limit for the Hayward section is 15 km/h. With ATC the system could calculate in real time and then implement the required braking to get the train to decelerate to 15 km/h before a point about 15m before entering the curve. ATP, since it's entirely dependent on human factors, requires a large buffer zone before the start of where speed restrictions are required to account for a driver failing to acknowledge the speed limit change, penalty grace period and potential subsequent penalty braking. The larger the change in speed limit, the larger that buffer zone must be.

[danbrotherston]

Maybe there is something wrong with the track? It’s hard to imagine what would require such an extreme slowdown.

A similar case previously occurred on the southbound track approaching Erb St. They would slow to a crawl ahead of the switch for the freight crossover, then speed up a little before slowing down as they approached the crossing at Erb. I actually watched one and the slowdown appeared to be intended to apply to the switch itself, so I suspect there was an issue with the switch. What it was I can’t imagine; and if they were concerned about the switch not switching properly or staying in the proper location I think a better approach would have been to send out a crew every morning to clamp or bolt it in the LRT operating position, then reverse the procedure before the freight went through in the evening. But regardless, eventually it was fixed and while they still proceed rather slowly through the Erb St. crossing they at least approach it at a somewhat more reasonable speed.

Although a lot of this stuff is somewhat mysterious. I recently watched a video discussing an incident in Britain where a passenger train went through a slow order 100mph over the limit, at full track speed of about 125mph rather than the slow limit of 25mph (numbers might be slightly off, but not hugely off; it went through at 5 times the speed limit). It was a temporary slow order, not a curve or something like that. What is weird is that the limit for freight trains was 125mph! Indeed, the signage, with two numbers on it, one for passenger and one for freight, was a factor in the incident. I don’t understand how passenger trains could need to slow to 25mph while it’s still considered perfectly safe for freight to blow through at 125mph.

There's nothing wrong with the track there that is limiting the speed. It is, in fact, entirely based on the limitations of ATP. ATP is entirely limited by the human driver factor. Had we gone with an ATC system (which is much more expensive to implement) like what is being done on Line 5 Eglinton in Toronto that large section of crawling along at 15 km/h wouldn't exist since ATC essentially drives the train in ATC enabled sections. The curve speed limit for the Hayward section is 15 km/h. With ATC the system could calculate in real time and then implement the required braking to get the train to decelerate to 15 km/h before a point about 15m before entering the curve. ATP, since it's entirely dependent on human factors, requires a large buffer zone before the start of where speed restrictions are required to account for a driver failing to acknowledge the speed limit change, penalty grace period and potential subsequent penalty braking. The larger the change in speed limit, the larger that buffer zone must be.

I don't think I buy this explanation...the 15 km/h section starts a minute before the curve...we have lots of other turns which don't have similar ridiculous restrictions.

[ijmorlan]

I don't think I buy this explanation...the 15 km/h section starts a minute before the curve...we have lots of other turns which don't have similar ridiculous restrictions.

Are the turns with non-ridiculous speed limits in Line-Of-Sight (LOS) areas? I have no idea, I’m just wondering if that might be the difference.

It doesn’t really matter, because even if there is a reason that means they can’t just simply fix it, it still doesn’t justify it, because it is ridiculous for the train to have to go as slow as it does. This is similar to the O-Train “can’t operate with doors open even in an emergency without going back to 1800s scheduling technology” problem; regardless of the technical details, it’s ridiculous that they have such a problem. In both cases, whatever the detailed technical explanation, it just means the designers screwed up earlier in the process.

[danbrotherston]

I don't think I buy this explanation...the 15 km/h section starts a minute before the curve...we have lots of other turns which don't have similar ridiculous restrictions.

Are the turns with non-ridiculous speed limits in Line-Of-Sight (LOS) areas? I have no idea, I’m just wondering if that might be the difference.

It doesn’t really matter, because even if there is a reason that means they can’t just simply fix it, it still doesn’t justify it, because it is ridiculous for the train to have to go as slow as it does. This is similar to the O-Train “can’t operate with doors open even in an emergency without going back to 1800s scheduling technology” problem; regardless of the technical details, it’s ridiculous that they have such a problem. In both cases, whatever the detailed technical explanation, it just means the designers screwed up earlier in the process.

I'm thinking of the turn from Waterloo Park onto Caroline Rd. it's also moving from an ATP section to an on road section, now, the speed restriction is higher because it is a wider turn, but the speed restriction doesn't start hundreds of meters (yes, hundreds, I measured) away from the intersection as it does at Hayward.

I will also take this opportunity to once again argue that the LRT should have continued along the freight railway, to a grade separated station at Block Line, then turned towards the hydro corridor between the car dealership and the mattress place. While they were at it, they could have built segregated bike lanes and a sidewalk on Courtland, as well as a trail from Block line to Balzer Rd, as well as connecting to the back of the towers on Fallowfield cutting 600 meters off their walk to the LRT station.

[westwardloo]

I certainly support a bypass but I got the sense the opposition to a bypass was strictly within Elmira.

Well, look what the Charles/Duke loop did to DTK. That may only have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but we're still recovering from it today.

Obviously hard to know who is actually against the bypass. Anecdotally, speaking with people I know that own businesses downtown Elmira would love a by-pass. I think it has been put on the back burner do to it being a regional issue, if the township had the ability to build this they would have done it ages ago.  

Not sure if you have been downtown Elmira recently, but the camel's back already broke decades ago. I think traffic bypassing the downtown would have a minimum, if any effect on overall sales.  Obviously a much nicer of a town, but St. Jacobs downtown has definitely seen the benefits of reduced tracker trailer traffic zooming down the main street. 

Sorry to go off topic slightly.

[ijmorlan]

Are the turns with non-ridiculous speed limits in Line-Of-Sight (LOS) areas? I have no idea, I’m just wondering if that might be the difference.

It doesn’t really matter, because even if there is a reason that means they can’t just simply fix it, it still doesn’t justify it, because it is ridiculous for the train to have to go as slow as it does. This is similar to the O-Train “can’t operate with doors open even in an emergency without going back to 1800s scheduling technology” problem; regardless of the technical details, it’s ridiculous that they have such a problem. In both cases, whatever the detailed technical explanation, it just means the designers screwed up earlier in the process.

I'm thinking of the turn from Waterloo Park onto Caroline Rd. it's also moving from an ATP section to an on road section, now, the speed restriction is higher because it is a wider turn, but the speed restriction doesn't start hundreds of meters (yes, hundreds, I measured) away from the intersection as it does at Hayward.

Thanks for the example. That one had a slow area ahead of it at the switch for a while, but it seems to have been fixed and I agree it’s much more reasonable — it still looks pretty slow, but the slowness has some connection to the conditions we can observe. I have no idea whether the fact that the turn itself is in the LOS area affects how they handle it.

I will also take this opportunity to once again argue that the LRT should have continued along the freight railway, to a grade separated station at Block Line, then turned towards the hydro corridor between the car dealership and the mattress place. While they were at it, they could have built segregated bike lanes and a sidewalk on Courtland, as well as a trail from Block line to Balzer Rd, as well as connecting to the back of the towers on Fallowfield cutting 600 meters off their walk to the LRT station.

That does sound like a good idea — eliminate the jog at Hayward (with its 2 sharp turns), not to mention the crossings associated with Graybar and the pedestrian crossing at the corner with Courtland, as well as the crossing at Blockline and the crossings associated with the businesses between Courtland and the tracks. And eventually the station could essentially be in the Virerra Village basement, which would be really slick!

[KevinT]

I will also take this opportunity to once again argue that the LRT should have continued along the freight railway, to a grade separated station at Block Line, then turned towards the hydro corridor between the car dealership and the mattress place. While they were at it, they could have built segregated bike lanes and a sidewalk on Courtland, as well as a trail from Block line to Balzer Rd, as well as connecting to the back of the towers on Fallowfield cutting 600 meters off their walk to the LRT station.

I daydream about this every time I ride through that section. What a wasted opportunity...

[Bytor]

I will also take this opportunity to once again argue that the LRT should have continued along the freight railway, to a grade separated station at Block Line, then turned towards the hydro corridor between the car dealership and the mattress place. While they were at it, they could have built segregated bike lanes and a sidewalk on Courtland, as well as a trail from Block line to Balzer Rd, as well as connecting to the back of the towers on Fallowfield cutting 600 meters off their walk to the LRT station.

I daydream about this every time I ride through that section. What a wasted opportunity...

That would have been a bad route, IMO. Think of the work necessary to get accessible stairs and a ramp down to the bottom of the corridor for a station there. Also, the nearest track at the bottom is a bit more than 90m from the current station platform, straight line distance, so a switchback ramp and stairs at AODA maximum grade would potentially double that distance. That would add a couple minutes to get to the station for healthy people, more for people with mobility issues, and thus reduce the catchment area on the other side of Courtland Ave., not to mention how it makes transferring to and from busses less convenient, too.