News   Apr 23, 2024
Avontuura's Wanderer Guides Designed For Architecture Buffs to Geek-out in Toronto, and Worldwide
 208     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Queen's Cross Food Hall Brings Global Flavours to Toronto Eaton Centre
 724     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
News Roundup for April 23, 2024
 447     0 

Waterloo Region Transit Developments (ION LRT, new terminal, GRT buses)

Pessimistically, a PRT system could be built for $20 million/km, including the ancillary infrastructure (maintenance depot) and vehicles.

Some stations could be at grade, and others integrated into buildings. The projected demands for a LRT in KW make spending a billion dollars (plus present value of future operating subsidies and maintenance) a bit crazy. They're saying that, if they're lucky, they'll have 30,000 trips a day in thirty years. Peak passengers per hour per direction over any given stretch can't be more than 2000 or 3000. Couple that with low average speed, and I am envisioning a white elephant.
 
afransen said:
Pessimistically, a PRT system could be built for $20 million/km, including the ancillary infrastructure (maintenance depot) and vehicles.

Some stations could be at grade, and others integrated into buildings. The projected demands for a LRT in KW make spending a billion dollars (plus present value of future operating subsidies and maintenance) a bit crazy. They're saying that, if they're lucky, they'll have 30,000 trips a day in thirty years. Peak passengers per hour per direction over any given stretch can't be more than 2000 or 3000. Couple that with low average speed, and I am envisioning a white elephant.
Click to expand...

some would consider PRT the "white elephant" it's kind of difficult to push a system that hasn't really been proven anywhere, to the extent at which we are talking about in this context.
 
BMO said:
some would consider PRT the "white elephant" it's kind of difficult to push a system that hasn't really been proven anywhere, to the extent at which we are talking about in this context.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the same reason why aerorail is being dismissed as infeasible, neither PRT or Aerorail have been proven in anything other than point to point transport. I'm not saying that these technologies should not be investigated, but if they are built somewhere, they should not be done at taxpayer expense.
 
dunkalunk said:
This is exactly the same reason why aerorail is being dismissed as infeasible, neither PRT or Aerorail have been proven in anything other than point to point transport. I'm not saying that these technologies should not be investigated, but if they are built somewhere, they should not be done at taxpayer expense.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Even the first bus routes were paid for by GM and other motor car companies to introduce the technology.
 
dunkalunk said:
This is exactly the same reason why aerorail is being dismissed as infeasible, neither PRT or Aerorail have been proven in anything other than point to point transport. I'm not saying that these technologies should not be investigated, but if they are built somewhere, they should not be done at taxpayer expense.
Click to expand...

One would think that innovative technologies are the ones that should be eligible for government support rather than amply demonstrated technologies. No one wants to be first to put PRT into an urban setting (all current deployments are in campuses) because it's risky. But if we pooled that risk and tried it somewhere, it could be very helpful.

We keep ploughing cash into very expensive, ineffective technologies like LRT, yet no one seems willing to spend less on a riskier technology that has at least theoretical potential to be much more efficient in some applications, especially those where we are looking to build LRT to serve very lightly travelled corridors.
 
BMO said:
Exactly! Even the first bus routes were paid for by GM and other motor car companies to introduce the technology.
Click to expand...

ULTra, who are furthest along in commercializing PRT, are currently working on some serious systems in India along with a infrastructure company who will build it on BOT basis, with the cities only contributing the ROW above streets. It should be very interesting to see whether they can get it off the ground. I imagine there will still be the naysayers even if those systems are successful.
 
afransen said:
ULTra, who are furthest along in commercializing PRT, are currently working on some serious systems in India along with a infrastructure company who will build it on BOT basis, with the cities only contributing the ROW above streets. It should be very interesting to see whether they can get it off the ground. I imagine there will still be the naysayers even if those systems are successful.
Click to expand...

The real difficulty will be making a system with an elevated ROW wheelchair accessible. I haven't seen a system which can move along a perfectly vertical access to act to get the user to the location and as an elevator to ground level. They all seem to assume stairs or ramp would exist. A city like Paris would go ballistic if you tried to install it downtown elevated and capacity numbers don't make it worth tunnelling and I'm not certain the per-stop cost would make it viable as a bus replacement for feeder services.

Calgary would probably be a good candidate for PRT. They have lots of ground level space outside of downtown and thanks to the +15 network many buildings could host 2nd floor stops without security concerns and have elevators available. Not needing vertical transport dramatically reduces the time a stop is blocked and the cost of building a stop.
 
The Regional Council of Waterloo-Kitchener-Cambridge tonight approved light rail as the preferred technology for a rapid transit corridor, according to a vote carried live by 570 All News Radio. LRT passed by a 9-2 vote according to a Twitter feed from The Record newspaper.
 
From Waterloo Chronicle:

LRT plan passed
Possible route change for uptown

Light rail transit is coming to Waterloo.

The question now is just where the on-street tracks are going to go.

Regional councillors approved the $818 million plan at a meeting Wednesday night.

They also called for a review of the route in uptown Waterloo.

“Light rail transit benefits Waterloo,†Coun. Jane Mitchell said. “It will develop our industrial corridor on Northfield Drive and the research and technology park.â€

Councillors voted heavily in favour of LRT.

Mayor Brenda Halloran was the only councillor opposed to the train technology.

“Vision means different things to different people†said the mayor, who advocated a bus rapid transit plan. “This recommendation does not represent what the people want.â€

Halloran also opposed a move to reroute trains in the uptown.

Under the original proposal, rail lines will make a square around an uptown block, with southbound trains leaving Waterloo Park and traveling down Caroline Street and northbound trains following King Street, turning left at Erb Street and going into Waterloo Park.

Coun. Sean Strickland called for an examination of running trains along the existing Waterloo spur line in the uptown. Trains would travel from Kitchener north on King Street then cut through the existing rail path through Waterloo Town square and into Waterloo Park.

Waterloo city council gave its approval to the original route in 2009. The change came as a surprise to the city, Halloran said.

“There was no consultation done with our city staff,†she said. “We have no interest in having our public square interfered with in any way.â€

Strickland softened the motion, instead asking for regional staff to review all route options in Waterloo’s core.

“We want to explore the feasibility of changing the route,†he said, noting that no decision on route has been made.

The rest of the route is set. Trains will leave Conestoga Mall, travel along Northfield into the research and technology park and move south through the University of Waterloo campus.

The trains will then enter Waterloo Park, and after the uptown, travel south on King Street to Fairview Park Mall in Kitchener.

Councillors also approved an enhanced bus service for Cambridge.

For more on the story, pick up next Wednesday’s edition of the Chronicle
Click to expand...
 
I'm still most upset about the east-west portion of the LRT that runs along Northfield to Conestoga Mall. This is supposed to spur development in the central corridor, not provide trains from one mall to another. Uptown is already feeling pressure from the redeveloped Conestoga Mall, so unless the developers over there are chipping in some money, they could take it to St. Jacob's Farmers Market at Weber and King.
 
Wow! Fantastic news. I'm amazed by the overwhelming margin. This is some happy news for a change. Not Halloran's finest hour, though.

Regardless of whether you like malls, Conestoga Mall is by far the largest trip generator and the hub of activity in that part of Waterloo. It is definitely the logical terminal at this time and the system would be far weaker without it.
 
Conestoga Mall is an important transit and employment node. Ignoring/bypassing it would be ill-advised.
Though, its importance should diminish with the LRT stops at Northfield and Bearinger, hopefully the bus routes of the north-west will focus more on those than on going all the way to the mall.
 
I agree with the comments on Conestoga mall. It is essentially Waterloo's version of Yorkdale mall. By-passing it would be a big mistake IMO.

When this gets built it might actually transform the region quite profoundly. As it stands the city centres aren't too dispersed, and are fairly compact.
 
There is also quite a bit of medium-high density housing and low income housing around this area. and don't forget that mall parking lots, power centres, and car dealerships can be rezoned to mixed-use.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top