ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

Thanks for posting this.

Although I have to admit I found this just as disappointing as the one about what powers the trains (spoiler: it’s electric!). Lose the cute hand-drawn diagrams and show photos of the actual stuff — inside a TPSS, cab view of the control panel, etc. — and give a few technical details such as the actual voltages involved or what the door control looks like. I don’t mean expand to a one-hour technical overview only of interest to technical people; but talk to an audience that actually cares about the technology and might one day want to learn more.

I have this thought as well, because I'm interested in the technical details, but you must consider the intended audience. Most people probably aren't even aware of the existence of the traffic control, or the train control system. I mean, given that seems like half the city thinks it's a street car, this is probably a great video to show that there is far more too it than that.

[ijmorlan]

Thanks for posting this.

Although I have to admit I found this just as disappointing as the one about what powers the trains (spoiler: it’s electric!). Lose the cute hand-drawn diagrams and show photos of the actual stuff — inside a TPSS, cab view of the control panel, etc. — and give a few technical details such as the actual voltages involved or what the door control looks like. I don’t mean expand to a one-hour technical overview only of interest to technical people; but talk to an audience that actually cares about the technology and might one day want to learn more.

I have this thought as well, because I'm interested in the technical details, but you must consider the intended audience.  Most people probably aren't even aware of the existence of the traffic control, or the train control system.  I mean, given that seems like half the city thinks it's a street car, this is probably a great video to show that there is far more too it than that.

Sure, but I’m suggesting that even for the intended audience it’s dumbed down. It doesn’t actually answer the title question, really, in any case. Although I could say more about the present video, I have more concrete complaints about the previous “how is it powered” video: really, they couldn’t have had one scene filmed inside a TPSS? Or mentioned the specific voltages, just in passing? There wasn’t a single image of actual electrical equipment. I can’t believe that anybody interested enough to watch wouldn’t be interested in seeing the actual equipment. Why do you think industrial tours, Doors Open, etc., are so popular?

[ijmorlan]

They really should have moved the Laurier - Waterloo Park stop up to University Ave and then moved the UW stop up to Columbia St. The University routes currently are not connected to any ION station, which isn't good. However, moving some or all of the University routes to Seagram would make those routes slower, and miss the highly used University/Philip stop.

I understand that ION and GRT are two seperate entities. I continue to ask why?

Depends what you mean. Operation and maintenance of ION is contracted out, along with the construction. But as far as riders will be concerned, it will be a single integrated system with one fare. If GRT contracted out the operation of each bus route to a separate company you would not then say that our transit system consisted of 20 (or however many) separate entities, even if that many organizations were involved in running it.

[ijmorlan]

On a somewhat-related note, has anybody else noticed that the trees on the other side of the path in the park are about to be cut down? I guess they’re 10cm or whatever over from where the new line of trees between the pedestrian and cycling paths will be so they have to come out.

Creative planning could have kept both rows of trees. Just pave the existing path as the bicycle path and create a second path parallel to the existing path, using the existing trees to guide placement of the new path.

To be fair, this is not related to LRT, it's related to the park trails, which is strictly a city project.

That being said, I don't believe keeping the trees would have been possible, never minding the impact on trees of paving right up to them, there isn't enough room for the pedestrian trail between the trees and some of the buildings inside the fencing.  Yes, those buildings could have been moved, but that's far more expensive that simply moving a fence a few feet.

Yes, this really belongs in a different thread. But I don’t really understand what you’re saying, in light of what I recall from the plan. My recollection is that the plan calls for a bicycle trail immediately next to the ION fence, then a line of trees, then a pedestrian path, with each path being 4m in width. OK, maybe there isn’t room between the fence and the existing line of trees for a 4m path, but clearly there is room for, say, a 3.5m path, because there is one there now. So just pave that. Then pave a pedestrian path on the other side of the existing line of trees.

I’m not sure exactly what is planned for the other items in the way of the pedestrian path, but it seems pretty clear that things will be moving, at least if I’m reading the plans at all correctly.

On of the things I’ve noticed about planners is they’re incredibly bad at saying “X is ideal, but 0.9X is fine if that is what is existing or convenient to fit into existing conditions”. This goes for everything from lane widths to wheelchair ramp inclines, and it is very often the case that by pushing a limit just a little, many possibilities are opened up to make things better overall even if the specific aspect being pushed is in some theoretical sense not as good as it “should” be. Take a wheelchair ramp example. Say that ramps should be 1/20 slope (can’t remember right now). But in *this* location, making it 1/19 allows eliminating a switchback. Worth doing? Very likely. Just a tiny bit steeper than what is ideal, but better in other ways. Same concept in the park — the existing path is great, partly because of the trees. So don’t destroy all the existing trees just because they aren’t in *exactly* the right place.

[Canard]

I'm just happy they're making videos at all.

They could have done nothing!

[danbrotherston]

Yes, this really belongs in a different thread. But I don’t really understand what you’re saying, in light of what I recall from the plan. My recollection is that the plan calls for a bicycle trail immediately next to the ION fence, then a line of trees, then a pedestrian path, with each path being 4m in width. OK, maybe there isn’t room between the fence and the existing line of trees for a 4m path, but clearly there is room for, say, a 3.5m path, because there is one there now. So just pave that. Then pave a pedestrian path on the other side of the existing line of trees.

I’m not sure exactly what is planned for the other items in the way of the pedestrian path, but it seems pretty clear that things will be moving, at least if I’m reading the plans at all correctly.

On of the things I’ve noticed about planners is they’re incredibly bad at saying “X is ideal, but 0.9X is fine if that is what is existing or convenient to fit into existing conditions”. This goes for everything from lane widths to wheelchair ramp inclines, and it is very often the case that by pushing a limit just a little, many possibilities are opened up to make things better overall even if the specific aspect being pushed is in some theoretical sense not as good as it “should” be. Take a wheelchair ramp example. Say that ramps should be 1/20 slope (can’t remember right now). But in *this* location, making it 1/19 allows eliminating a switchback. Worth doing? Very likely. Just a tiny bit steeper than what is ideal, but better in other ways. Same concept in the park — the existing path is great, partly because of the trees. So don’t destroy all the existing trees just because they aren’t in *exactly* the right place.

You do misunderstand what I am saying, I will clarify.  

There is plenty of room on the west side of the line of trees between the trees and the LRT fence.  Probably 5 meters or more.  Enough room for one wide trail, but not separated trails.

The problem is the east side of the line of trees, between the trees and the farmstead where the animals are kept.  Obviously, the fence would need to be moved, and the farmstead would be shrunk far more than it would be by moving the trees.  But the bigger problem is the two buildings that are in the way of the trail.  These buildings are part of the farmstead, and must be inside the fence, but would obstruct your path.

   

In the end, they are fairly small trees.  The philosophy of "compromising" on standards is not a straight forward one, and a more interesting conversation for another place.

[Viewfromthe42]

Can someone make a video of a walk-around and walk-through of the ION LRV on Saturday? Sadly I'm out of town.

[urbd]

Yes, this really belongs in a different thread. But I don’t really understand what you’re saying, in light of what I recall from the plan. My recollection is that the plan calls for a bicycle trail immediately next to the ION fence, then a line of trees, then a pedestrian path, with each path being 4m in width. OK, maybe there isn’t room between the fence and the existing line of trees for a 4m path, but clearly there is room for, say, a 3.5m path, because there is one there now. So just pave that. Then pave a pedestrian path on the other side of the existing line of trees.

I’m not sure exactly what is planned for the other items in the way of the pedestrian path, but it seems pretty clear that things will be moving, at least if I’m reading the plans at all correctly.

On of the things I’ve noticed about planners is they’re incredibly bad at saying “X is ideal, but 0.9X is fine if that is what is existing or convenient to fit into existing conditions”. This goes for everything from lane widths to wheelchair ramp inclines, and it is very often the case that by pushing a limit just a little, many possibilities are opened up to make things better overall even if the specific aspect being pushed is in some theoretical sense not as good as it “should” be. Take a wheelchair ramp example. Say that ramps should be 1/20 slope (can’t remember right now). But in *this* location, making it 1/19 allows eliminating a switchback. Worth doing? Very likely. Just a tiny bit steeper than what is ideal, but better in other ways. Same concept in the park — the existing path is great, partly because of the trees. So don’t destroy all the existing trees just because they aren’t in *exactly* the right place.

You do misunderstand what I am saying, I will clarify.  

There is plenty of room on the west side of the line of trees between the trees and the LRT fence.  Probably 5 meters or more.  Enough room for one wide trail, but not separated trails.

The problem is the east side of the line of trees, between the trees and the farmstead where the animals are kept.  Obviously, the fence would need to be moved, and the farmstead would be shrunk far more than it would be by moving the trees.  But the bigger problem is the two buildings that are in the way of the trail.  These buildings are part of the farmstead, and must be inside the fence, but would obstruct your path.



In the end, they are fairly small trees.  The philosophy of "compromising" on standards is not a straight forward one, and a more interesting conversation for another place.

Probably reviewing the latest designs from March 23 for the Waterloo Park Central Promenade would help here (and yes, related to ION as it is a direct interface between one station and part of the line):

http://www.waterloo.ca/centralpromenade/

[danbrotherston]

Probably reviewing the latest designs from March 23 for the Waterloo Park Central Promenade would help here (and yes, related to ION as it is a direct interface between one station and part of the line):

http://www.waterloo.ca/centralpromenade/

Yes, the documents also show the constraints with the farmstead buildings.

It isn't related to ION as in it isn't being constructed by Grandlinq, nor is it required or necessitated by the LRT work, nor do Grandlinq agreements with respect to tree replacements apply to it (which matters specifically to this discussion).  Just because they are next to each other does not make them directly related.

I do think it is important to keep these things clear because I expect the LRT to be blamed for all construction going on now, like the King St. streetscape rebuild planned in the next few months.

If you mean related enough to discuss here, then sure, although it would probably fit better in the trails thread, or in a waterloo park thread.

[ijmorlan]

Yes, this really belongs in a different thread. But I don’t really understand what you’re saying, in light of what I recall from the plan. My recollection is that the plan calls for a bicycle trail immediately next to the ION fence, then a line of trees, then a pedestrian path, with each path being 4m in width. OK, maybe there isn’t room between the fence and the existing line of trees for a 4m path, but clearly there is room for, say, a 3.5m path, because there is one there now. So just pave that. Then pave a pedestrian path on the other side of the existing line of trees.

You do misunderstand what I am saying, I will clarify.  

There is plenty of room on the west side of the line of trees between the trees and the LRT fence.  Probably 5 meters or more.  Enough room for one wide trail, but not separated trails.

The problem is the east side of the line of trees, between the trees and the farmstead where the animals are kept.  Obviously, the fence would need to be moved, and the farmstead would be shrunk far more than it would be by moving the trees.  But the bigger problem is the two buildings that are in the way of the trail.  These buildings are part of the farmstead, and must be inside the fence, but would obstruct your path.



In the end, they are fairly small trees.  The philosophy of "compromising" on standards is not a straight forward one, and a more interesting conversation for another place.

Thanks, I think I see what you’re saying. I think I’m making some assumptions about what is about to happen. I guess we’ll see. I reserve the right to be confirmed in my irritation if the new line of trees is planted less than, say, 1m from where the existing line is. But if it moves over significantly than I may have to admit the plan actually does make sense.

[UrbanCanoe]

An early preview of the new chimes (as the doors close) has been released! Hear it for yourself here: https://www.instagram.com/p/BSgh7_IDpnf/

The notes are a descending triad of "G"--"E"--"C"

[Viewfromthe42]

Sure hope that what we're hearing at the start is a pre-chime. It would be very shocking if the chime started almost at the exact same moment as the doors closed, giving little warning to get clear of them.

[Markster]

TTC for comparison:
https://youtu.be/m18Qhy1EdLk?t=12s

ION seems to be in a minor key, in comparison.

[DHLawrence]

Sounds like the chime they use on the new streetcars (appropriate since they come from the same place).

[yige_t]

An early preview of the new chimes (as the doors close) has been released! Hear it for yourself here: https://www.instagram.com/p/BSgh7_IDpnf/

The notes are a descending triad of "G"--"E"--"C"

Sounds identical to the TTC Flexity chime:

https://youtu.be/XLezCxEL-5U?t=29s