Light Rail Transit

[panamaniac]

Interesting article - I find it fascinating that some of the best thoughts for the future relate to Kitchener's "tired" areas near the core - if you look at the area between King and Courtland (and west to the train tracks) and between Stirling and Ottawa, the potential seems enormous.

Edit - I mean the Record piece posted by KevinL, not the Chronicle article, and looking at a map I could extend that area out to Mill St and Madison Ave. What would that be in area, I wonder? 100 acres?

[Waterlooer]

How will LRT go down Borden Ave? Isn't it only a small side street?

[Rowe]

It will only be one set of tracks. The other set will be on Ottawa.

I was one of the 'urban design students' working on this area. Borden is currently an industrial street, but does have the room to become a full 'urban' street.

[.FLH.]

First off, I will state that I am not an LRT supporter...but..

How much noise would an LRT make? I can't load the article, my inlaws computer is insane, but I can't imagine it would make anymore noise than the cars that are already there.

[KevinL]

How much noise would an LRT make? I can't load the article, my inlaws computer is insane, but I can't imagine it would make anymore noise than the cars that are already there.

Electric, steel-on-rail vehicles certainly make different sounds than internal-combustion, rubber-on-asphalt ones do. Many of these are quieter, but some can be louder. Going over a switch track or turning a bend, for example, can cause shifts or friction that can give ground vibration or a squeal effect. I understand that modern LRVs greatly reduce squeal by having independently-turning wheels (rather than opposing wheels sharing an axle), so I'm not entirely sure what sort of noise is causing the concern here. As the Chronicle article does not go into much detail, I'm hopeful we can learn more through official sources.

[Osiris]

Can someone explain to me why the Councillors needed to get harsh with one another over declaring conflict of interest? I find it a bit crass that because the Councillor representing uptown dared to actually live there she is not allowed to provide input.

Does it make sense to anyone else to have those dependent on their SUVs living in the suburbs planning our rapid transit? Seems backwards to me.

[.FLH.]

Electric, steel-on-rail vehicles certainly make different sounds than internal-combustion, rubber-on-asphalt ones do. Many of these are quieter, but some can be louder. Going over a switch track or turning a bend, for example, can cause shifts or friction that can give ground vibration or a squeal effect. I understand that modern LRVs greatly reduce squeal by having independently-turning wheels (rather than opposing wheels sharing an axle), so I'm not entirely sure what sort of noise is causing the concern here. As the Chronicle article does not go into much detail, I'm hopeful we can learn more through official sources.

I thought I read some where that LRT's could use rubber wheels on the rails... I think it was in a subway somewhere it was rubber wheels on the rails...

Anyways, thank you for the insight.

[mpd618]

I thought I read some where that LRT's could use rubber wheels on the rails... I think it was in a subway somewhere it was rubber wheels on the rails...

There are rubber-tired subways (e.g. Montreal) and rubber-tired trams (basically a guided bus), but neither is something that works with conventional rail tracks.

[plam]

There are rubber-tired subways (e.g. Montreal) and rubber-tired trams (basically a guided bus), but neither is something that works with conventional rail tracks.

Yep. Actually Montreal's metro sort of has rail tracks as a backup e.g. in case of flats. Advantages of rubber include ability to climb grades without cogs (6.5% vs 3% for rail) and an allegedly smoother ride. That last claim I totally don't buy: BART's steel wheels seem to somehow provide a far smoother ride than the rubber tires on the Montreal metro that I remember from riding it everyday and trying to write on the metro. Didn't work at all.

[dunkalunk]

With continuously welded rail, articulated bogies, and gentle curves, there is no reason why rail-based vehicles can't run as smoothly as tired vehicles.

[zanate]

Can someone explain to me why the Councillors needed to get harsh with one another over declaring conflict of interest? I find it a bit crass that because the Councillor representing uptown dared to actually live there she is not allowed to provide input.

Does it make sense to anyone else to have those dependent on their SUVs living in the suburbs planning our rapid transit? Seems backwards to me.

Conflict of interest is up to the councilors to declare for themselves, so I'm surprised that there were harsh words about it from others. Still, the Municipal Conflict of Interest act has teeth, and there is no real way for councilors to protect themselves from it except to be overcautious in declaring. It could be that the discussion was to remind certain optimistic councilors that they could be setting themselves up for big hurt. Or, it could just be strong-arm politics.

So, it is backwards, but the problem is in the law of the province and not with the councilors.

More words on it as it relates to LRT in Waterloo, written up recently by Eric Davis, here: http://www.millerthomson.com/assets/...20Interest.pdf

[Pheidippides]

Why is the noise issue coming up now? I heard staff answering questions about noise throughout the many open houses, meetings, consultations, etc. The areas of greatest concern have been identified in published materials and maps for some time as well.

[DHLawrence]

Because it's a slow news week. Whenever The Record publishes a light rail article or letter of any kind, it means they have nothing else to use and need to get people in a frenzy again.

[mpd618]

Why is the noise issue coming up now? I heard staff answering questions about noise throughout the many open houses, meetings, consultations, etc. The areas of greatest concern have been identified in published materials and maps for some time as well.

Because noise impacts are part of the provincial Transit Project Assessment, which has around another week left in the comment period, and because John Shortreed has brought it up to the media.

[dunkalunk]

Some more eye candy:



Keep in mind that this map is just as much fantasy as it is reality (note the Conestoga Parkway BRT and the extra GO station). Though any additions to it I see as feasible by 2031.

[KevinL]

Because it's a slow news week. Whenever The Record publishes a light rail article or letter of any kind, it means they have nothing else to use and need to get people in a frenzy again.

Or the Chronicle, as is the case here. It's not all on the Record's head.

[.FLH.]

There is an article on the noise issue in The Record.. Would someone mind posting it..I have reached my monthly limit.

[DHLawrence]

LRT's noise and traffic impacts can be managed, study says

A new study says street-level trains won’t be more jarring or noisy than normal traffic and won’t cause major gridlock as cars are displaced.

Rail transit launches in 2017 in Kitchener and Waterloo at a cost of $818 million.


“We don’t see significant issues with traffic or with noise or vibration,” said Thomas Schmidt, the regional transportation commissioner.

All in all it's quite a non-partisan article, particularly for Outhit. They must have had a talk with him. He does quote Shortreed at the end, but everything that guy had to say was more of a sidebar to the topic.

[KevinL]

All in all it's quite a non-partisan article, particularly for Outhit. They must have had a talk with him. He does quote Shortreed at the end, but everything that guy had to say was more of a sidebar to the topic.

The upshot is, the only areas needing noise barriers are on the suburban fringe (Quiet Pl, Waterloo and Mill St, Kitchener). No need for any noise structures in urban centres. Seems to counter much of Shortreed's FUD.

[BigCityBoy]

In this article from HumanTransit, Jarrett Walker discusses the benefits of at-grade transit to the user, both as it relates to how transit is physically experienced and how transit is perceived. Walker suggests that the holy grail of transit design is to make it as close to a seamless extension of the sidewalk as possible. In this regard, LRT as a technology is without peers. At-grade is where transit belongs, first and foremost because that is where the users are.

Then there's the fact that building transitways at-grade removes the need to build and then maintain the costly infrastructure that separates elevated rail from traffic, or the less-user-friendly, less-accessible elevated stations that accompany it. Still to mention is that at-grade transit breaks up the unsustainable monopoly held by cars on our ground transport system, which is actually a bonus in my opinion.

Then there's the fact that Waterloo already has a traffic problem and by eliminating a major thoroughfare by one lane will undoubtedly increase traffic volumes in other areas (despite the Utopian view that most car users will switch to the LRT). I believe in the merits of the HUMANTRANSIT argument, in some cases. However, we do not live in a perfect society and K-W is already very accustomed to automobiles. Perhaps not ideal, but certaily true. BCWESSEL sure is for the merits of mass transit and the like. My question is - are we merely arguing for a system that is idyliic, or one that actually might work for our community? Are we so blinded to Utopia that we can't see what is right in front of our faces? Did London, New York, Paris, or any other major urban centre build on their roads or spend much more to sink them underground? Why do we think that was? So that it could be a 'seamless extension' of the sidewalk. I think not. It was so that they could accommodate both methods of travel to the greatest efficiency. Here, the LRT will cause innumerable delays in the preferred method of travel of most citizens in K-W - the car.