Greater Golden Horseshoe Transit

Waterloo Region Rapid Transit

153 posts in this topic

Anyway, for those interested, Rapid Transit Webcast on right now until 8PM.

When is the next one? I wish I would have see that link sooner, in order to 'participate'!

If possible, can you post a day earlier that this "Webcast" will be on?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When is the next one? I wish I would have see that link sooner, in order to 'participate'!

If possible, can you post a day earlier that this "Webcast" will be on?

Thanks

Sorry about that, I was going to post it earlier but I never found the link until an hour before the start.

They said after the region decides on the one rapid transit proposal out of all the proposals in April, there will be more public consultations, and then possibly another webcast. Nothing more than that though.

If you missed it though, you can view the whole thing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you missed it though, you can view the whole thing here.

Thanks for the updated "link".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how bout doing a bus rapid transit train in dedicated bus lanes and utilizing a 2 piece articulate with main bus section and 2 artic sections with the rearmost section home to a second cab in the rear for additional braking and steering it coulld in a desiel bus have a second smaller deisel motor(would be in TTC Subway parlance the Guards car) ..And if its a electric trolly bus it could work on electricity fed by a region owned wind turbine...the bus train could use dedicated rights of way on street running like the TTC street car Rapid TRANSITS ON Spadina/St clair and harbourfront..IT COULD HAVE TTC SCRT LIKE TRAFFIC SIGNALING OR RAILWAY CROSSING SIGNALS TO MAKE THE BUS TRAIN FASTER GETTING BETWEEN CONESTOGA MALL AND AINSLE ST TERMINAL

THE RAILWAY CROSSING SIGNALS WOULD BE MARKED AT ALL INTERSECTIONS AS (BUS TRAINS ..OBEY SIGNALS STOP WHEN SIGNALS ACTIVE /AND GATES ACTIVE/DOWN) THIS WOULD GIVE THE BUS TRAINS CLEAR ACCESS TO ALL INTERSECTIONS LIKE TRAINS(CAN PACIFIC/GEXR) GET AT LEVEL CROSSINGSAND WOULD MAKE IT NONSTOP BETWEEN STATIONS

The stations would be

1 AINSLE ST TERMINAL

2 DELTA HESPLER @CORNATION AND DUNDAS@WATER

3 CAMBRIDGE HOSPITAL OR CAMBRIDGE CENTRE TERMINAL

4 PRESTON TOWN CENTRE OR SMART CENTRES CAMBRIDGE

5 SPORTSWORLD CROSSING(NEAR GREYHOUND)

6 FAIRVIEW MALL TERMINAL

7 OTTAWA@CHARELS

8 CHARELS STREET TERMINAL

9 VICTORIA@KING STATION

10 GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL

11 BAUER LOFTS BUILDING

12 UPTOWN WATERLOO(WATERLOO SQUARE)

13 KING @LAURIER

14 KING @ MANULIFE/WATERLOO INN

15 CONESTOGA MALL

16 ST JACOBS MARKET AREA

LEDGEND (SCRT = STREETCAR RAPID TRANSIT)(TTC = TORONTO RANSIT COMMISION)(GAURDS CAR= THE CAR THE SECOND OPERATOR ON SUBWAY TRAINS IS LOCATED)

THESE WOULD BE THE IDEAL STOPS WITH UW TO CONESTOGA MALL VIA RT PARK AND MCORMICK AND TO KING LAURIER STATIONS SERVED BY CONVENTIONAL BUSES AND OR ARTICULATES

THIS IS MY OTHER IDEA WITH THE RAIL CORIDOR IDEA STILL GOOD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh... tl;dr.

Can you use punctuations and capitalization at the correct places next time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh... tl;dr.

Can you use punctuations and capitalization at the correct places next time?

Ya! Wow! That was hard to read, or follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how bout doing a bus rapid transit train in dedicated bus lanes and utilizing a 2 piece articulate with main bus section and 2 artic sections with the rearmost section home to a second cab in the rear for additional braking and steering it coulld in a desiel bus have a second smaller deisel motor(would be in TTC Subway parlance the Guards car) ..

Does this kind of bus even exist? Why is a second cab in the rear needed for additional braking and steering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this kind of bus even exist? Why is a second cab in the rear needed for additional braking and steering?

I think that would be a bi-articulated bus, but a second cab isn't needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bi-articulated buses are illegal in Ontario, they exceed the maximum allowed length for a passenger vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act. Additionally, I think they're considered to have two trailers, which is illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bi-articulated buses are illegal in Ontario, they exceed the maximum allowed length for a passenger vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act. Additionally, I think they're considered to have two trailers, which is illegal.

Where did you read that they are "illegal"? (Just as someone was saying once that an "articulated bus" required an "AZ" licence, which "is not" the case in Ontario.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straight out of the H.T.A

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/...h08_e.htm#BK178

Look under Vehicle Dimensions.

(6) Subject to sections 110 and 110.1, no vehicle, including load, shall exceed the length of 12.5 metres while on a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 109 (6); 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 25 (3); 2009, c. 5, s. 38; 2010, c. 16, Sched. 12, s. 2 (4).

Exception

(6.1) Subsection (6) does not apply to a fire apparatus, a semi-trailer, a bus or a road service vehicle as described in clause (1) (^_^. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 12, s. 2 (5).

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (6.1) is amended by striking out “a semi-trailer” and substituting “a trailer”. See: 2010, c. 16, Sched. 12, ss. 2 (6), 4 (2).

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (6.1) is amended by adding “a recreational vehicle” after “a bus”. See: 2010, c. 16, Sched. 12, ss. 2 (7), 4 (2).

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 109 is amended by adding the following subsection:

Same

(6.2) Subject to sections 110 and 110.1 and despite subsection (6.1), no full trailer, including load, shall exceed the length of 12.5 metres while on a highway unless it is in a combination of vehicles whose configuration, weight and dimensions are as prescribed by regulation. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 12, s. 2 (8, 9).

See: 2010, c. 16, Sched. 12, ss. 2 (8), 4 (2).

Length of combination

(7) No combination of vehicles, including load, coupled together shall exceed the total length of twenty-three metres while on a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 109 (7).

Exception

(7.1) Despite subsection (7), a combination of vehicles whose configuration, weight and dimensions are as prescribed by regulation may have a total length while on a highway, including load, that does not exceed 25 metres. 1993, c. 34, s. 3 (1).

Maximum box length

(8) No combination of vehicles composed of more than one trailer shall have a box length in excess of 18.5 metres while on a highway. 1993, c. 34, s. 3 (2).

Exception

(8.1) Despite subsection (8), a combination of vehicles whose configuration, weight and dimensions are as prescribed by regulation may have a box length that does not exceed 20 metres while on a highway. 1993, c. 34, s. 3 (2).

(8.2)-(9) Repealed: 2009, c. 33, Sched. 26, s. 3 (11).

Maximum length of semi-trailer

(10) Subject to sections 110 and 110.1, no semi-trailer shall have a length with an external measurement, excluding any portion of auxiliary equipment or machinery that extends beyond the front or rear of the semi-trailer and that is not designed or used to carry a load, that exceeds 14.65 metres while on a highway. 1993, c. 34, s. 3 (2); 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 25 (4); 2010, c. 16, Sched. 12, s. 2 (10).

Exception

(10.1) Subsection (10) does not apply to a semi-trailer designed to carry vehicles. 1993, c. 34, s. 3 (2).

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (10.1) is repealed by the Statutes of Ontario, 2002, chapter 18, Schedule P, subsection 25 (5). See: 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, ss. 25 (5), 46 (1).

Same

(10.2) Despite subsection (10), a semi-trailer used in a combination of vehicles whose configuration, weight and dimensions are as prescribed by regulation may have a length with an external measurement, excluding any portion of auxiliary equipment or machinery that extends beyond the front of the semi-trailer and that is not designed or used to carry a load, that does not exceed 16.2 metres while on a highway. 1993, c. 34, s. 3 (2); 2010, c. 16, Sched. 12, s. 2 (11).

Length of bus

(11) No bus, other than an articulated bus, shall exceed the length of 12.5 metres while on a highway, but an increase in the length of a bus caused by the addition of a liquid filled or other energy-absorbing bumper shall not be included in determining the length of the bus. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 109 (11).

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (11) is repealed and the following substituted:

Length of bus, recreational vehicle

(11) No bus or recreational vehicle shall exceed the length of 12.5 metres while on a highway, but an increase in the length of a bus or recreational vehicle caused by the addition of a liquid-filled or other energy-absorbing bumper shall not be included in determining the length of the bus or recreational vehicle. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 12, s. 2 (12).

See: 2010, c. 16, Sched. 12, ss. 2 (12), 4 (2).

Same

(11.1) Despite subsection (11), a bus that meets the requirements prescribed by regulation may exceed the length of 12.5 metres. 1993, c. 34, s. 3 (3).

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsection (11.1) is repealed and the following substituted:

Same

(11.1) Despite subsection (11),

(a) a recreational vehicle or a bus, other than an articulated bus, that meets the requirements prescribed by regulation may have a length that exceeds 12.5 metres but does not exceed 14 metres; and

(:lol: an articulated bus that meets the requirements prescribed by regulation may have a length that exceeds 12.5 metres but does not exceed 25 metres. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 12, s. 2 (12).

See: 2010, c. 16, Sched. 12, ss. 2 (12), 4 (2).

So I think reading Subsection 11.1 that this type of bus is legal as long as it doesn't exceed 25 metres or 82 feet, and according to the wikipedia post a few back Vanhool make a bi-artic that is 25 m long. so it sounds perfectly legal to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First source to show up in Google is this board, http://www.cptdb.ca/index.php?s=&showt...st&p=436786 .

So I'll assume "Rocketdriver2013" is an authority on this? Hmmm ........ a "Paralegal" maybe? (I'll go with "D4500", and their research ............... "Legal" in every sense of the word. BUT, that doesn't mean is likely to happen. (It's about as likely as the Region building the LRT for "less than" $1.5 Billion! LOL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did you read that they are "illegal"? (Just as someone was saying once that an "articulated bus" required an "AZ" licence, which "is not" the case in Ontario.)

Not sure about the double trailer thing, i know the province did a "pilot program" with trucks in 2009. I don't know how the pilot ended, but I haven't seen a double trailer in ontario..

And a quick google search turned up biarticulated busses that range from 24-28 metres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double-trailer trucks are allowed on 400-series highways, and have permission to get to some industrial sites in Cambridge.

Whether or not bi-articulated buses are legal, a separate question is whether they're practical on the kinds of routes we could use them on, as they have substantial operational limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I'll assume "Rocketdriver2013" is an authority on this? Hmmm ........ a "Paralegal" maybe? (I'll go with "D4500", and their research ...............

I would not call Rocketdriver unreliable seeing as the document that D4500 found is from Jan and the one I found is from Dec 2010. This issue has been talked about many times before and IIRC someone proved they were illegal at the time.

Whether or not bi-articulated buses are legal, a separate question is whether they're practical on the kinds of routes we could use them on, as they have substantial operational limitations.

Taken from http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isys...;context=#BK100 Schedule 18

"Designated Bus 3 is an articulated bus. It is not a recreational vehicle. An articulated bus has two portions with articulation between the portions, or has three portions with articulation between each portion. "

The best bet is to call the MTO and confirm this as my interpretation is that they are now legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like te suggestion that has been made to run the LRT from Conestoga Mall (forget running it to St. Jacob's, because the Route 21 will still have to continue on uo to Elmira, anyway) all the way to the "Smart Center" in Cambridge. Why? Well, where is the "huge" bottleneck right now? It's on Hwy. 8 between Kitchener and the 401, and again on the 401 between Hwy. 8 and Hwy. 24. Wouldn't it be so much easier to jump on the LRT at Fairview Mall and "take the train" to Cambridge, even if it only went as far as the "Smart Center", then jump back on "iXpress" buses that now would "short turn" in Cambridge at the "Smart Center". In fact, even the iXpress buses in KW could "short turn" at Fairview Mall then having the LRT, or the Route 52, as the connections on to Cambridge.

Seems to make a lot of sense to me, afterall, it is Hwy. 8 and the 401 where the delays happen! (Just think of what happens when there is an accident on the bridge over the Grand River, and everything is diverted onto "Old King St.", or out via "Homer Watson"?)

Some food for thought for the Public Meetings again.

The thing is that that would take the price of the first phase to something like $1.3 billion, and we have less than $600 million in funding from the upper levels of government. It's a lot of track to lay down, and a large bridge to build -- and relatively few riders currently on that section.That said, the Region is already having bus by-pass shoulders built on both Highway 8 and the 401, specifically so that the "adapted BRT" buses between Fairview and Cambridge would be able to make it through when there's traffic.

I think it is crucial that there be a commitment to starting work on extending the route when ridership on the Fairview to Cambridge section reaches a particular ridership target.

Huh? (Quote): It's a lot of track to lay down, and a large bridge to build -- and relatively few riders currently on that section. Since when are "relatively few riders" on the iXpress from Cambridge to Kitchener, or vice versa? Seems to me that everytime I see an iXpress bus at Fairview, whether it's going "North" or "South" it almost always seems pretty full to me. Maybe I'm just viewing it at the wrong time of the day, and it's "empty" all the rest of the time.

If that's the case, as 'mpd618' states, then Cambridge, and Mayor Craig, shouldn't get their collective hopes up too high for an LRT system in Cambridge. Obviously, the ridership isn't there in Cambridge.

I will admit though, that running it JUST between Kitchener & Cambridge, with integrated "Rapid Buses" running on either end makes a heck of a lot of sense to me. As 'FIDO' says, where is the bottleneck? It's on Hwy 8 and 401, so why not bypass it all with a highspeed LRT? You'd only need 1 train & 1 track, if it could run between the two cities, bypassing all stopped vehicular traffic, at 100 km/hr, or 120 km/hr. When it gets to the "Smart Center" it unloads and then REVERSES back on the same track to do it all over again ............. back & forth, back & forth, all day. Seems simple enough ........... 1 track.............1 train?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since when are "relatively few riders" on the iXpress from Cambridge to Kitchener, or vice versa? Seems to me that everytime I see an iXpress bus at Fairview, whether it's going "North" or "South" it almost always seems pretty full to me. Maybe I'm just viewing it at the wrong time of the day, and it's "empty" all the rest of the time.

If that's the case, as 'mpd618' states, then Cambridge, and Mayor Craig, shouldn't get their collective hopes up too high for an LRT system in Cambridge. Obviously, the ridership isn't there in Cambridge.

I don't claim to speak authoritatively. Based on what I've seen and what I've heard other people say (as well as GRT ridership stats), the iXpress has fewer riders on the portion south of Fairview Mall. The biggest ridership as far as I know, and the worst capacity issues, are between the downtown Kitchener and the McCormick stations.

If the ridership on the section south of Fairview Mall gets to the point that buses every 7.5 minutes are routinely full (i.e. the LRT frequency), I'd say that's the right time to start extending the line.

I would like to see dedicated bus lanes on Hespeler Road implemented ASAP for the iXpress / aBRT to help build up visibility and ridership on the Cambridge section. Ultimately I do want to see a Region-wide system, and not just one corridor either. But you have to start somewhere, and the bottlenecks in terms of transit ridership are (according to my experience and to the figures I've seen) not on the Cambridge section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been talking with a friend over MSN about possible names that we can name the Waterloo Region Rapid Transit, regardless of BRT or LRT. Some ideas we came up with:

- Loo Bus/Loo Train

- Grand Rapid Transit

- Loo Way

- Wat Bus/Wat Train

- Waterloo Metro

- W-Bus/W-Train

- RIM speedway :P

What would you guys name it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been talking with a friend over MSN about possible names that we can name the Waterloo Region Rapid Transit, regardless of BRT or LRT. Some ideas we came up with:

- Loo Bus/Loo Train

- Grand Rapid Transit

- Loo Way

- Wat Bus/Wat Train

- Waterloo Metro

- W-Bus/W-Train

- RIM speedway

What would you guys name it?

Wally

WART

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been talking with a friend over MSN about possible names that we can name the Waterloo Region Rapid Transit, regardless of BRT or LRT. Some ideas we came up with:

- Loo Bus/Loo Train

- Grand Rapid Transit

- Loo Way

- Wat Bus/Wat Train

- Waterloo Metro

- W-Bus/W-Train

- RIM speedway :D

What would you guys name it?

Something fluffy sounding, like "Allegro", which dictionary.com defines as "brisk or rapid in tempo".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now