[waterloowarrior]

I was unaware the feds were doing such a thing, but yeah, the province is paying 2/3rds. Either way, we still have the operating costs afterwards. It makes no sense for Cambridge to have to pay for the operating costs during the time that the service doesn't exist in Cambridge.

I don't think the feds have committed officially yet, but see this link
http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/article/389032

But Cambridgites can use and benefit from LRT too. I'm sure there will be lots of buses that transfer to LRT + there will be park and rides. Service levels will likely increase. They will benefit from reduced traffic as well.

And it's normal for people to pay taxes for something even if they don't get the full benefits of the service. My taxes/bus pass funds go to Cambridge buses to the power centres, even though I've never taken a bus there. In Toronto people who don't live near rapid transit still pay taxes going toward the TTC. In Ottawa people who only take local buses in the city still have funds going toward the O-Train and the Transitway.... etc.

[Cambridgite]

I don't think the feds have committed officially yet, but see this link
http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/article/389032

But Cambridgites can use and benefit from LRT too. I'm sure there will be lots of buses that transfer to LRT + there will be park and rides. Service levels will likely increase. They will benefit from reduced traffic as well.

And it's normal for people to pay taxes for something even if they don't get the full benefits of the service. My taxes/bus pass funds go to Cambridge buses to the power centres, even though I've never taken a bus there. In Toronto people who don't live near rapid transit still pay taxes going toward the TTC. In Ottawa people who only take local buses in the city still have funds going toward the O-Train and the Transitway.... etc.

Sure, we will probably have express busses connecting us to the LRT at Fairview Park Mall, but it's not the same. The more transfers you have, the less attractive transit is to choice riders. Given the express busses and the fact that Cambridge residents will benefit somewhat from it, maybe we could pay a lower rate compared to KW residents...maybe 30%?

You're right that people pay for services they don't use all the time, but you have to understand the perceptions of the people in Cambridge towards the Region and Kitchener in particular. We have been at the losing end of the region for decades now. Despite our population surging since the 70s when the region formed, we have lost a lot of government services to more centralized locations in Kitchener. Young drivers have to find their way up to Ottawa and Lackner to get their G1, G2, and G tests. Same thing if you want to renew your health card, get a passport, pretty much anything. Presently, we still have a local courthouse, but that will soon be gone when the consolidated facility is built in Kitchener, by Market Square. So with services continually being drained out and a continuing lack of ways for Cambridge residents to conveniently access them by rapid transit, you bet people at this end of the Region are going to feel shafted and want out.

[gghtransit]

Isn't the province paying 2/3rds and the federal gov't hopefully paying the rest anyways?

Depends what happens on October 14th.

[Ontario1]

Presently, we still have a local courthouse, but that will soon be gone when the consolidated facility is built in Kitchener, by Market Square. So with services continually being drained out and a continuing lack of ways for Cambridge residents to conveniently access them by rapid transit, you bet people at this end of the Region are going to feel shafted and want out.

Criminals....you sure have a lot of them. Every time I read the news, it's in Cambridge. When they move the courthouse here, probably 50% or more of the criminals will be from Cambridge. Well at least the police headquarters is there. Maybe at least we catch some of them before they come here to do their crimes.

I hope rapid transit stays in Kitchener-Waterloo for a long time. We don't want to make it easy for Cambridge criminals to get here. Also, Cambridge residents should have to pay extra for parking since Kitchener taxpayers are paying for the garage at Charles and Benton which is going to be used by the courthouse criminals.

On second thought, (I'm dreaming) it would be better if we kicked Cambridge out of the Region altogether. Actually, that would be the best solution. The whining would finally stop. Ah...the silence would be golden. We wouldn't have to pay for the LRT to reach them. Hey, we could even put in an electronic toll road on King Street or any other streets which run off the expressway to catch Cambridge residents for payment when they want to come to Kitchener.....lol. Wow, this dreaming session is fun....lol. Come to think of it, Cambridge residents didn't pay to build our expressway and they use it. Maybe I'm onto something??

[DHLawrence]

Since it's a provincially maintained highway (Highways 7, 8, and 85), I don't believe Kitchener residents paid for it either; all of Ontario paid for it!

[Cambridgite]

Criminals....you sure have a lot of them. Every time I read the news, it's in Cambridge. When they move the courthouse here, probably 50% or more of the criminals will be from Cambridge. Well at least the police headquarters is there. Maybe at least we catch some of them before they come here to do their crimes.

Have the statistics to back that up? The broader consensus in Waterloo and Cambridge is that Kitchener has more crime and rougher streets.

I hope rapid transit stays in Kitchener-Waterloo for a long time. We don't want to make it easy for Cambridge criminals to get here. Also, Cambridge residents should have to pay extra for parking since Kitchener taxpayers are paying for the garage at Charles and Benton which is going to be used by the courthouse criminals.

:haha:

On second thought, (I'm dreaming) it would be better if we kicked Cambridge out of the Region altogether. Actually, that would be the best solution. The whining would finally stop. Ah...the silence would be golden. We wouldn't have to pay for the LRT to reach them. Hey, we could even put in an electronic toll road on King Street or any other streets which run off the expressway to catch Cambridge residents for payment when they want to come to Kitchener.....lol. Wow, this dreaming session is fun....lol.

Well, if Cambridge is to be treated like this, then perhaps it would be best for us to separate.

By the way, I never said that Kitchener-Waterloo residents have to pay for the LRT to come to Cambridge. If Kitchener and Waterloo pay for phase 1, they can pay for phase 1. In that case, Cambridge would fully pay for the extension into Cambridge. The reason is that Kitchener-Waterloo would enjoy the service for longer. I realize the province and feds will also be contributing money towards this, so what I'm referring to is any additional capital or operating costs that the Region would otherwise incur.

Come to think of it, Cambridge residents didn't pay to build our expressway and they use it. Maybe I'm onto something??

Already been covered by DHLawrence. :tup:

[gghtransit]

Since it's a provincially maintained highway (Highways 7, 8, and 85), I don't believe Kitchener residents paid for it either; all of Ontario paid for it!

Actually, (and I'll have to check up on this again to be sure) it was the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo who initially built the expressway back in the 60's, only after did the province assume responsibility for the expressway system and later improvments.

[Actonite]

Actually, (and I'll have to check up on this again to be sure) it was the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo who initially built the expressway back in the 60's, only after did the province assume responsibility for the expressway system and later improvments.You're right. Kitchener and Waterloo had the for sight to build the express way on their own. Had they not done so this region would have never developed the way it has.

[jcollins]

Rapid transit debate warrants scrutiny

January 10, 2009
Jeff Outhit

Rapid transit is poised to move from proposal to approval, in lightning speed.

Within three months, planners will recommend a system to Waterloo regional council, linking Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge along the central urban spine.

Expect a pitch for light rail transit (electric trains) with a first phase linking Conestoga Mall in Waterloo with Fairview Park mall in Kitchener. I suspect construction costs for the first phase may exceed $457 million.

Local public review will last just four months. If council approves, it will be sent to the province, which has up to two months to decide.

Quick approval is intended to keep rapid transit projects from stalling in red tape and neighbourhood objections.

Before this year ends, provincial and federal governments are expected to agree to pay launch costs for a first phase. Construction would begin in 2012 and trains would run in 2014.

Issues to keep in mind:

Is there a pressing transportation need for electric trains? No. Transit is little-used here. This will not change when rapid transit arrives. Ridership projections have been slim.

If the only goal is improved transit, adding regular buses or rapid buses would be much cheaper.

So why install costly tracks and trains? Because this project is mostly about land use. Politicians see trains as the best tool to draw buildings, jobs and residents to underdeveloped urban cores. This is to help meet targets for smart growth.

Studies suggest rapid buses do not draw investment. This is why councillors have favoured trains since proposing rapid transit in 2002.

Also, trains sound world-class. Buses do not. Rail has a wow factor that many find appealing.

Will trains make urban cores busy and vibrant? Possibly, over time. Studies suggest trains have boosted property values near stations and tracks in other North American cities, drawing developers and invigorating neighbourhoods.

Isn't this a costly gamble? There's no guarantee trains will draw passengers and developers. Some critics fear a failed megaproject. But there are ways to mitigate risks to local taxpayers.

One way is to persuade senior governments to pay construction costs. Another is to pick an attractive route and system. Councillors also plan to buy underused properties near stations, clean them up, then dangle them in front of investors.

Rapid transit has huge implications for taxpayers and property owners. We all need to pay attention to the debate coming this year.

Jeff Outhit can be reached at 519-894-2250 ext. 2654 or jouthit@therecord.com.

[dunkalunk]

One thing J. Outhit misses in his analysis is the redesign of bus routes in conjunction with the rapid transit line.

One of the main reasons behind poor transit ridership is the bus system is designed to terminus at a core which people no longer travel to on a regular basis.
And except for route 7, our bus routes don't make the distinction between mainline routes and collector routes.
We also have extremely limited use of transit priority lighting in the region.

These combined factors often make transit trips long, schedules unreliable in peak periods, and transfers even more painful. When you can bike to your destination faster than it would take with transit, the system is flawed. Unless you live and work within a 5 minute walk of King Street, transit is unappealing.

Its good to be critical but not cynical when it comes to projects like this. While a light rail system would definitely help spur high density growth in the region and I remain optimistic, there are many places where it can go wrong.

And even if rapid transit gets pushed back, there are transit improvements that should be made regardless. The GRT redesign by UW, bus lanes on Highway 8, the creation of a transit only route along the Elmira spur through Waterloo Park, and transit priority lighting along trunk routes are examples of this.

[urbanfan89]

Of course it would be better if we built a Berlin Wall-like structure around the Cambridge City Limits, with watchtowers, razor fences, armed guards, and so forth. Then we won't worry about their residents using K/W services without paying.

[Duke-Of-Waterloo]

We also have extremely limited use of transit priority lighting in the region.

Didn't the iXpress have it in their plans for GPS to trigger traffic lights to turn green on approach? Has this been implemented at all?

The only 3 intersections in the Region that I can think of that have an actual transit priority signal are the ramps for Hespeler Road and the 401, the ramps of Sportsworld Drive and Highway 8, and the entrance from Fischer-Hallman Road to Highland Hills Mall. This is a sad number...

[DHLawrence]

Of course it would be better if we built a Berlin Wall-like structure around the Cambridge City Limits, with watchtowers, razor fences, armed guards, and so forth. Then we won't worry about their residents using K/W services without paying.

:koko:

[Cambridgite]

One thing J. Outhit misses in his analysis is the redesign of bus routes in conjunction with the rapid transit line.

One of the main reasons behind poor transit ridership is the bus system is designed to terminus at a core which people no longer travel to on a regular basis.

And except for route 7, our bus routes don't make the distinction between mainline routes and collector routes.
We also have extremely limited use of transit priority lighting in the region.

These combined factors often make transit trips long, schedules unreliable in peak periods, and transfers even more painful. When you can bike to your destination faster than it would take with transit, the system is flawed. Unless you live and work within a 5 minute walk of King Street, transit is unappealing

Yeah, well said. Outhit also does the ridership potential of the King Street corridor no service by pointing out the transit ridership of the region as a whole. When you consider that the King Street corridor is service by NUMEROUS variations of route 7 and the iXpress, the ridership is quite outstanding. Replacing the iXpress and route 7s with an LRT is doable, I'm sure. Substitute the LRT with a rapid bus during the times when it isn't busy enough for LRT.

Didn't the iXpress have it in their plans for GPS to trigger traffic lights to turn green on approach? Has this been implemented at all?

I heard this once somewhere. All I know is that the iXpress stops at LOTS of red lights, so there ya go.

[Cambridgite]

:koko:

I concur.

[Duke-Of-Waterloo]

I heard this once somewhere. All I know is that the iXpress stops at LOTS of red lights, so there ya go.

Well then: what a good model, text book example of bus rapid transit we have here! :haha:

Another thing - I'm seeing more and more of iXpress buses used for regular routes. What's up with that??? Just this weekend I saw an iXpress bus on Hespeler Road for some other random route....

[DHLawrence]

You think that's odd? I saw an iXpress bus turning onto old Highway 8 from Riverbank Drive. Does that road even HAVE a bus route?!

[Cambridgite]

You think that's odd? I saw an iXpress bus turning onto old Highway 8 from Riverbank Drive. Does that road even HAVE a bus route?!

Yep, old highway 8 has route 52 running on it. Nothing on Riverbank Drive though.

[notmyfriends]

Of course it would be better if we built a Berlin Wall-like structure around the Cambridge City Limits, with watchtowers, razor fences, armed guards, and so forth. Then we won't worry about their residents using K/W services without paying.

:banana:

[rapid_business]

Well then: what a good model, text book example of bus rapid transit we have here! :haha: ....

Remember though that the iXpress is far from BRT. There is no advanced payment or passenger queuing, no separated ROW, no advanced queuing for the buses...etc. It's just a limited stop bus route.

[Deez]

I heard this once somewhere. All I know is that the iXpress stops at LOTS of red lights, so there ya go.

All iXpress buses have transponders on the roof (the little black things near the front) that give them signal priority, but only in two corridors: University between Seagram and King and (I think) along Hespeler Rd in Cambridge.

[WatDot]

University between Seagram and King

Which includes... 3 traffic lights and 2 pedestrian crossing lights. :haha:

[waterloowarrior]

$25M; Rapid transit gets big commitment from regional council

JEFF OUTHIT
RECORD STAFF

WATERLOO REGION

Regional council voted yesterday to spend up to $25 million on rapid transit, in a community where almost everyone drives and few ride transit.

It would be the first of many payments on a project intended to draw buildings, jobs and residents to urban neighbourhoods. Council approved the funds yesterday during its annual budget process.

Assuming council approves a rapid transit system later this year, this cash will be spent to:

Buy land, for a maintenance facility, stations and park-and-ride sites.

Hire up to 16 people to oversee the project.

"We want to hit the ground running," said Coun. Jim Wideman of Kitchener.

Committing $25 million in local funds sends a message to senior governments that council is serious about building rapid transit, Regional Chair Ken Seiling said.

The federal and provincial governments have said they want to pay most costs to build a first phase. But it's not known if they will pay all costs.

Councillors have been warned they may have to put $150 million in local funds into the project.

Rapid transit construction is proposed in 2012-2014, pending council approval.

Construction and operating costs are still unknown. Councillors have yet to choose a route, or decide on rapid buses or electric trains. These details are expected to be unveiled within three months.

Public review and approval of a proposed system is expected to take six months at most.

Construction costs for a first phase, linking Kitchener and Waterloo, could exceed $457 million. This estimate builds construction inflation into a rail estimate released in 2004.

Rapid transit was proposed in 2002 to encourage urban redevelopment. Almost $4 million has been spent to date on various studies.

Councillors have previously favoured electric trains over rapid buses because research suggests trains are more likely to encourage urban renewal.

Regular transit is little used here. In 2007, residents took 43 per cent fewer transit trips than the average for residents in big cities.

Grand River Transit provided 31 per cent less service per resident than the average transit service.

jouthit@therecord.com

[bauer123]

I am happy this is getting pushed though so fast, if one thing is good about this "recession" is projects like this are getting the go-ahead to create jobs. I hope they put a station by Allen and king. It warrants one if 144 park gets the go-ahead.

[rapid_business]

JEFF OUTHIT
....Regular transit is little used here. In 2007, residents took 43 per cent fewer transit trips than the average for residents in big cities.

Grand River Transit provided 31 per cent less service per resident than the average transit service.
jouthit@therecord.com

Jeff Outhit and his obvious bias....

[zanate]

Does the guy own a car dealership or something?

[DHLawrence]

Maybe a car dealership owns him!

Considering his column is called "The Road Ahead," it's not entirely surprising. What surprises me is that the pro-LRT Record is printing his words.

[rapid_business]

He's got a right to his own opinion, but what bothers me is his angle. He doesn't come out and say he thinks rapid transit implementation is a stupid idea, but his angle with selective facts is seething subjective opinion without actually stating it.

[dunkalunk]

He could have a future with the sun...

[WatDot]

I am happy this is getting pushed though so fast, if one thing is good about this "recession" is projects like this are getting the go-ahead to create jobs.

Agreed!

[kitchener-lrt]

Jeff Outhit and his obvious bias....

Yep, I remember a few years ago he wrote a column about it taking him 2 hours longer to get to work using GRT as opposed to his car.
He's just pro-car.

[zanate]

Yep, I remember a few years ago he wrote a column about it taking him 2 hours longer to get to work using GRT as opposed to his car.
He's just pro-car.

Which doesn't even make sense. Make a big point about how transit is slow and doesn't serve the population well, and then complain every time there's a proposal to improve transit because nobody uses it?

[rapid_business]

sure, it does. His attitutde is,"Why fund something that doesn't work? Sure it may improve it, and then it will work, but right now it doesn't, so put the money elsewhere."

[DHLawrence]

This guy's a yo-yo; from his anti-transit whining above to his column in today's paper:

Corners cut on transit spending (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/473516)

Regional council has voted to hike spending on roads, transit and the airport. The extra spending approved this year could top $40 million if rapid transit is approved.

So the 2009 budget is not standing still on transportation.

However, to keep a lid on costs, council rejected other proposed transportation upgrades estimated to cost more than $17 million.

Highlights of what council turned down and what it means:

Council did not buy technology to announce all bus stops electronically.

Implication: There's no end in sight to a human rights showdown. Drivers have been told to call out all bus stops to assist the blind but have refused, saying their safety is at risk.

Council did not boost funding for road repairs fast enough to keep up with construction inflation.

Implication: A backlog of road repairs that was to disappear by 2020 will now continue past 2032.

Council did not set aside any funds to help pay for future GO Transit railway stations.

Implication: GO trains may arrive within five years but there's no cash saved to pay local costs that could reach $30 million.

Council did not increase bus pass subsidies for the working poor.

Implication: After the latest fare hike, some low-income residents may find it too costly to ride the bus.

Council did not boost spending to build bicycle lanes and facilities.

Implication: The cycling network, 35 per cent completed, will not be finished by 2024 as planned.

Council did not increase spending to build sidewalks.

Implication: Many regional roads that need sidewalks will not get them, frustrating pedestrians.

Council did not buy more buses to expand Grand River Transit.

Implication: Passengers may continue to be left stranded by overcrowded buses on major routes. Ridership may not grow as fast.

Council will not replace transit buses after 12 years.

Implication: Buses will continue to decay over 18 years. This adds maintenance costs and reduces reliability.

Council will not expand maintenance and cleaning at the airport as it gets busier.

Implication: There's a higher risk of flight delays and cancellations and greater likelihood of dirty bathrooms, floors and public areas.

Next year, council will be asked again to endorse many of these proposals. Some concerns, such as overcrowded buses and airport maintenance, may be resolved this year by squeezing other funds.

But it appears the community will fall behind in some efforts, such as repairing roads, adding cycling lanes and installing sidewalks.

[notmyfriends]

With how often there are blind riders on a bus, isn't the easy solution just for blind riders to know to tell the driver what stop they want, and then the driver to tell them when they've reached that stop? How is that not what makes the most sense on every level?

[KW4Life]

With how often there are blind riders on a bus, isn't the easy solution just for blind riders to know to tell the driver what stop they want, and then the driver to tell them when they've reached that stop? How is that not what makes the most sense on every level?

Making sense and adhering to human rights regulations often conflict.

[notmyfriends]

But how would that even violate human rights?

[dunkalunk]

I know we all don't like Outhit, but perhaps the conversation about whether bus drivers calling out stops would be best continued in a new thread. We've gotten a bit off topic.

[gghtransit]

Didn't the iXpress have it in their plans for GPS to trigger traffic lights to turn green on approach? Has this been implemented at all?

The only 3 intersections in the Region that I can think of that have an actual transit priority signal are the ramps for Hespeler Road and the 401, the ramps of Sportsworld Drive and Highway 8, and the entrance from Fischer-Hallman Road to Highland Hills Mall. This is a sad number...

The iXpress does have priority measures at 17 (IIRC) interesctions in the Region, along University Avenue, Charles Street, Conestoga Blvd, and Hespeler Road. The priority works (or should work, LOL) by either extending the green phase or truncating the red phase of the signal the bus is approaching (so no "I" bar signals). I'm not entierly convinced the system works though, and even if it does it doesn't make a flippin' bit of difference if the bus is 30 min late.

You think that's odd? I saw an iXpress bus turning onto old Highway 8 from Riverbank Drive. Does that road even HAVE a bus route?!

Often when there's a major traffic problem on Highway 8 or the 401 the iXpress drivers will detour their buses to avoid getting stuck in traffic. Often Old King, and Maple Grove are used, and it's not unheard of to have Riverbank used as well to avoid the interesection of Sportsworld and Old King.

[gghtransit]

I am happy this is getting pushed though so fast, if one thing is good about this "recession" is projects like this are getting the go-ahead to create jobs. I hope they put a station by Allen and king. It warrants one if 144 park gets the go-ahead.

Sorry, no station at Allen and King, that was ruled out a long time ago.

[Bauer_buyer]

Sorry, no station at Allen and King, that was ruled out a long time ago.

Thank goodness for that...there was a time that I too favoured a station near the Bauer Lofts....but has anyone seen the dirty, filthy condition of some of those stations? The one at King and Allen is bad enough with garbage brimming over the containers and smut and dirt everywhere and the station by the LCBO is even worse. Is this a reflection of those who use it or is the transit commission/region/city not doing its job?

[bauer123]

Ya i didn't think of that. It's probably the city fault on not getting on it better. Be nice if they step it up if the LRT comes but i doubt it.

[rapid_business]

Thank goodness for that...there was a time that I too favoured a station near the Bauer Lofts....but has anyone seen the dirty, filthy condition of some of those stations? The one at King and Allen is bad enough with garbage brimming over the containers and smut and dirt everywhere and the station by the LCBO is even worse. Is this a reflection of those who use it or is the transit commission/region/city not doing its job?

The solution to that is more city workers cleaning it, plain and simple. An LRT station next to a building is an asset. Studies show a significant increase in property appreciation due to said convenience. If they are kept clean, and security is enforced, they are a beautiful resource to have nearby.

[WatDot]

It's 100% the City of Waterloo not having crews cleaning it up in a timely manner. I always see overflowing bins at the following stops: Westmount & Erb, University & King, Columbia & King. The first step is at least done, people are using the bins!!!

In a related matter... I've noticed over the last two years the City of Waterloo taking longer to cut City-owned grass. In fact, I've noticed it growing longer then their own stated by-law requirements for residents. Typical, hypocritical.

[rapid_business]

/\ What is even worse is the city not having bins at every bus stop, and people throwing the garbage on the ground because of it.

It's just the city trying to save cash wherever possible, and in some cases, that means cutting back these maintenance crews of sorts. The city of Edmonton contracted out the cleaning and garbage removal of bus shelters years ago in order to save cash...perhaps something like such could be in order here?

[dunkalunk]

Does anyone know how close this EA is to completion, It seems like its been going on for about 4 years...

[BusyBerliner]

I thought it was six years now (2002?)... either way, its beyond time to get this puppy wrapped up and start building the darn thing. :whip:

[rapid_business]

http://transitea.region.waterloo.on.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=14

Here is the timeline. The T of R were approved in '05, but the real EA didn't start until 06. Phase 3 will wrap up in '09 sometime, most likely in the fall.

[DHLawrence]

They've just been talking about the assessment for ten years...

Once the assessment's over, they'd better get going pretty quick!

[BusyBerliner]

That's right. I'm thinking of the RGMS document. The formal EA process took a while to get started.

[dunkalunk]

I was browsing the CPTDB today and I found something that might work for this region. Bombardier is developing a catenary-less power system using buried wires called PRIMOVE which is available on their tram systems. Its similar to the Bordeaux setup in the fact that the power is only turned on when there is a train above it.

But, unlike Bordeaux, the power source is buried and power transmission is contactless.

For areas that are not along King Street, or outside of urban cores, a regular caternary could still be used.

Here's the website (http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/sustainability/technology/primove-catenary-free-operation?docID=0901260d800486ab) explaining the system and a video (http://www.bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/image_and_media/products/PRIMOVE.wmv) (13.6MB wmv) to help illustrate the concept, nevermind the overarticulation.

[rapid_business]

/\ I like it. I looks likes a solid idea.

[urbanfan89]

I really don't see any benefit into using this technology.

It is proprietary, which limits GRT to one source for rolling stock.

Bordeaux experiences problems during major rain storms. I shudder to think what would happen during one of our winter storms.

The "Streetcar wires are ugly and repel people" argument is overrated. Just look at Toronto.

In the end there's no solid reason to use it, and a lot of solid reasons to stick with overhead wires.

We don't need gadgetbahn.

[dunkalunk]

Bordeaux
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Frankreich_2007.10.17_125653_.jpg/240px-Frankreich_2007.10.17_125653_.jpg

PRIMOVE
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/8481/trackya4.jpg

Bordeaux's problem is the exposed third rail, allowing water to affect the transfer of energy. PRIMOVE and it's track look cosmetically like a conventional Diesel powered unit but without the emissions. the power source is buried. When the video claims its operable in all weather conditions, I hope they included snow and ice.

It would certainly get rid of all of the NIBMBYism associated with caternary and poles running every which way, but at what cost? I'm being genuine here, how much more a system like this would cost compared to conventional caternary is yet to be seen. But in this instance, I hope vision doesn't have to justify itself too much for feasibility.

[DHLawrence]

If we can afford it and it's easy to maintain, it's worth a shot. It'll certainly be a talking piece, if nothing else. Otherwise, let a bigger city be guinea pig for it, because it will only be fuel for the anti-light-rail crusaders.

[notmyfriends]

I really don't see any benefit into using this technology.

It is proprietary, which limits GRT to one source for rolling stock.

Bordeaux experiences problems during major rain storms. I shudder to think what would happen during one of our winter storms.

The "Streetcar wires are ugly and repel people" argument is overrated. Just look at Toronto.

In the end there's no solid reason to use it, and a lot of solid reasons to stick with overhead wires.

We don't need gadgetbahn.

Here is an artists rendition of what the corner of yonge and king might look like with wired cars

http://www.caw4304.ca/images/05b.jpg

[BusyBerliner]

Here is an artists rendition of what the corner of yonge and king might look like with wired cars


lol, love it. :worship:

Personally, I don't really care which technology they use. Overhead wire's would never be a deal breaker for me, but hidden would be ideal I suppose.

[DHLawrence]

Overhead wires can be quite appealing, depending on the angle...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/picturenarrative/sets/72157611689194139

[0sprey]

i agree that we don't want to pigeon hole the city into only buying from one company down the years....

flexibility is the only negotiation power the city will have when time comes for maintenance or the purchase of more/new cars.


and on a side note, i don't have time to watch the video or read up on the tech, but what is the efficiency factor on this tech vs. overhead contacted wires? Will the city need 33% (or more) more power to allow for electrical losses due to non-contact power transfer?

[metropolis]

Here is an interesting article: BRT vs. LRT. I have been firmly on the side of LRT for a while now but this article (though it does not directly apply to Waterloo Region) makes some compelling points.

Worldchanging Interview: WRI on Bus Rapid Transit v. Light Rail

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009395.html

Julia Levitt
February 5, 2009 10:22 AM

What's the smarter solution for bringing mobility to 21st century cities: bus rapid transit (BRT) or light rail? With questions this big, it's important to consider all the perspectives.

A team of researchers at the World Resources Institute (WRI) recently produced a report that goes against the grain. WRI analyzed and compared BRT and light rail as two options for Maryland's Purple Line Project, a 16-mile transit corridor that will connect the D.C. suburbs. In January, the Institute came down in favor of BRT, with a statement announcing that "enhanced buses ... would cost less, offer similar services, and fight global warming better than light-rail cars."

Our main question related not to what's in the study, but rather, what seems to be left out. It's a common observation that light rail delivers benefit beyond transit alone, in the form of transit-oriented development that springs up as a result of developers, business owners and homebuyers seeking proximity to the train stations.

The team at WRI was happy to share their take on this and other issues. I interviewed the study's lead author, Greg Fuhs, and WRI's senior transport engineer Dario Hidalgo, about BRT/LRT, transit prejudices, and how other cities can apply this analysis to their own planning process.

Julia Levitt: In your study, you found that BRT outperformed light rail in cutting overall CO2 emissions. How did you come to that conclusion?

Greg Fuhs: Our study actually corroborates what is already stated in the Maryland Transit Administration’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): that BRT would be better on CO2 emissions for the Purple Line. This is a surprising finding to many, because it is often assumed that switching to an electric system such as light rail would reduce CO2 emissions. However, it is very important to consider the electricity source, and in our region the dominant source is currently coal-fired power plants.

So, while energy consumption from roadways would decrease with introduction of either light rail or BRT, for light rail the resulting emissions reduction is not enough to counterbalance the effect caused by the high electricity CO2 emission factor. In fact, CO2 emissions are projected to increase from business as usual with a light rail Purple Line. While this could change in the future with a major and permanent shift to low-carbon energy sources, for the foreseeable future we would likely continue to see higher CO2 emissions from light rail in this case.

JL: Critics of your report have pointed out that in North America, many people own cars, which gives them a choice that many riders overseas don't have, and that people who have the choice of driving a personal vehicle are often inclined to find light rail cars an acceptable alternative, but are less likely to ride buses. What's your take on this argument?

Dario Hidalgo: It is a common perception that a light rail system would attract more riders than BRT, and that is reflected in the demand estimations incorporated in the DEIS. However, I would raise two points:

First, in this case it is not at all certain that there would be a large enough increase in ridership to justify the significantly higher cost of light rail. For example, if we take just MTA’s ridership estimates, for the “Medium Investment” LRT and BRT alternatives we see a projection of 62,600 and 51,800 riders per day, respectively. That’s only about 20% more riders for light rail, yet the projected capital cost of the light rail system is more than twice that of BRT ($1.2 billion vs. $579 million), and also includes higher annual operation and maintenance costs.

Second, it is worth drawing a distinction between “buses” and “BRT.” The concept of bus rapid transit is not well understood in the United States, where there are only a few systems currently in operation. In reality, BRT would be designed more like a light rail than a standard bus system, with features like dedicated lanes, signal priority, pre-pay boarding, elevated station platforms, and efficient and comfortable vehicles that make it much more efficient and appealing than a traditional bus service. For the Purple Line, BRT would also offer travel times that are competitive with light rail. With a well-designed, well-operated, and well-advertised BRT in place, there is good reason to believe that many people would use and appreciate the system.

JL: Although your report shows that BRT will cost about half the amount of a light rail system, other studies show that light rail systems, because they are permanent structures, do more to encourage transit-oriented development. Was TOD a factor in the EMBARQ study? Do you think that BRT can facilitate and encourage dense development at a similar level?

GF: We did not look specifically at the TOD factor in our study. However, one cannot assume that transit-oriented development would be sparked by light rail but not BRT. For example, a recent study by the American Public Transportation Association looking at this issue considers both rail and traditional bus systems (although unfortunately it does not look at BRT specifically), and indicates that both can lead to significant positive land use changes. In any case, there is no reason to assume that LRT has a greater impact on land use than high-quality BRT if the systems provide similar travel times, capacities, and overall quality of service, as would be the case for the Purple Line. Moreover, developers can benefit from the shorter implementation time that BRT projects bring as compared to LRT.

DH: Also, regarding permanence, this is a somewhat relative concept. For example, there were thousands of miles of tram networks in the U.S. by 1940; much of this system was dismantled before 1970 with the rise of the automobile and suburbia. The forces behind development are not limited to the technology of transit vehicles, but also depend on factors such as accessibility, enabling policies, and background economics.

JL: Do you feel that the EMBARQ study comparing BRT/LRT can be easily applied to other regions and cities, or is this evaluation case-specific? What factors do you suggest other cities consider as top priorities when making their own decisions about public transportation?

GF: While certain general principles may apply to multiple locations (e.g., public transit is generally an asset to the community and its development should be encouraged), in reality every evaluation like this must be case-specific. After all, even if different locations have similar demographic and/or geographic characteristics, every local population has different needs and preferences and faces unique transportation challenges and political circumstances.

In considering public transportation projects, the first priority must be to determine if there is a need for a transit system to move people within the proposed corridor, and the entire decisionmaking process should be conducted in close consultation with the affected communities. Other important considerations include determining how much benefit a transit system could bring in terms of improved mobility, greater access to transport, incentives for economic development, and improved environmental quality. Further, and particularly in these lean economic times, the cost-effectiveness of the proposed system is a critical factor (especially in terms of competing for scarce state and federal funding). There is also evidence that urban infrastructure projects entail high risk of not meeting preliminary demand and cost estimates, and thus not realizing the projected cost-effectiveness. Such risks should be considered in the analysis and decision making process, but so far this has not been the case for the Purple Line project. Our study does attempt to quantify this risk by providing a sensitivity analysis of Purple Line cost and ridership projections, and we recommend that similar efforts be undertaken in future transit proposals.

In our study specifically, we emphasize that in this time of financial and climate crisis, cost-effectiveness, risk, and greenhouse gas emissions are especially important factors to consider. And in these three cases, BRT comes out as the better option for the Purple Line, as can be the case in other projects. Going forward, we would encourage decision makers and communities not to select a project based on perceptions, but on good analytics.

[phil235]

It is quite odd that this US study did not look at TOD, as that is a critical concern at present in Ontario with the intensification thrust in the Places to Grow document. I believe there is a fair amount of data which shows that BRT does not promote intensification to the extent that LRT does.

Ottawa has Canada's most comprehensive purpose-built BRT system which has been in place for about 30 years, and the consensus has been the transit oriented development has not met expectations. While there are certain nodes that have been intensified, for the most part developers have not been enticed to properties adjacent to BRT. For the most part, living directly beside a bus transitway is not seen as appealing. That is one of the reasons that Ottawa is currently moving forward with plans to convert its bus transitways to LRT in the urban core.

As an area that is desperately needing to curb its sprawl, TOD should be a key concern if not the key concern, and that certainly points to LRT.

[waterloowarrior]

An interesting thing with Ottawa is that we had a number of big TOD proposals announced during the planning of our last LRT line (which was cancelled, but now is going to be built eventually). These developments were actually in areas that already had really good bus service, and were right beside existing Transitway stations. Once the LRT was cancelled, these developments were all cancelled or put on hold.

[Beltliner]

It is quite odd that this US study did not look at TOD, as that is a critical concern at present in Ontario with the intensification thrust in the Places to Grow document. I believe there is a fair amount of data which shows that BRT does not promote intensification to the extent that LRT does.

Ottawa has Canada's most comprehensive purpose-built BRT system which has been in place for about 30 years, and the consensus has been the transit oriented development has not met expectations. While there are certain nodes that have been intensified, for the most part developers have not been enticed to properties adjacent to BRT. For the most part, living directly beside a bus transitway is not seen as appealing. That is one of the reasons that Ottawa is currently moving forward with plans to convert its bus transitways to LRT in the urban core.

As an area that is desperately needing to curb its sprawl, TOD should be a key concern if not the key concern, and that certainly points to LRT.

Not to mention that EMBARQ (http://www.embarq.org/en/about/about-embarq), the transportation division of the World Resources Institute that released this fluff, does most of its work and trumpets most of its results in centres like Mexico City, Quito, Guadalajara, Istanbul, and Bogota--locations that are notable for a lot of things except for being high-wage economies, and that therefore experience less of a net benefit from keeping labour costs down in favour of capital spending (which is a key consideration in light rail investment) than do places like Calgary or Waterloo.

[waterloowarrior]

Rapid transit's backers need to see bigger financial picture TheRecord.com -Jeff Outhit


Taxpayers will face a series of big bills if politicians approve a rapid transit system this year. Some costs will be clear. But other costs may be less defined.

Keep this in mind when weighing the merits of the plan.

Regional council proposes rapid transit as a way to draw people, jobs and buildings to underdeveloped areas near a rapid transit line. Electric trains are the likely choice.

Rapid buses are far cheaper but are seen as less attractive to investors.

Public costs will include:

Construction costs. They are not yet released but I suspect costs could exceed $457 million, for a first phase with electric trains.
Operating costs. They are not yet released but old studies, now outdated, estimated $4 million a year.
Associated costs. These could include tens of millions to resolve traffic fallout and to buy up land near transit stations. For example, council plans to spend $39 million to widen the last narrow part of Weber Street West in Kitchener. This is an old plan moving forward because of rapid transit.

Cars will be displaced from King Street if a dedicated transit lane consumes two of four lanes there. Weber is the best alternate route, but not with its two-lane bottleneck between College and Guelph streets.

It's unrealistic to expect drivers pushed off King Street to suddenly switch to rapid transit. It's smart to plan for this traffic fallout.

But this begs the question: are there other sites in Kitchener and Waterloo where traffic fixes will be required? How much will it cost to carry traffic pushed out of transit lanes?

Planners have not identified other problem sites, but it makes sense to estimate these costs.

Also uncertain is the cost of council's plan to buy underused properties near rapid transit stations.

Politicians intend to assemble lots, demolish old buildings, clean up dirty soil, then dangle prepared sites in front of investors. This is meant to encourage urban renewal.

The plan has some merit but also some risk. Some public costs will be recovered when land is sold but it's unlikely all costs will be recovered.

The financial implications of rapid transit extend beyond building and operating trains or buses. This bigger financial picture needs to be part of the public debate.

Jeff Outhit can be reached at 519-894-2250, ext. 2654, or jouthit@therecord.com. (jouthit@therecord.com)

[bauer123]

This guy bugs me. It's surprising how many people forget the 1.40l gas in the summer, so when the region starts to get proactive on the situation people say it isn't needed. If the trains get approved i guarantee it will work. Maybe not right away but it will eventually. Not to mention if Jeff wants to talk about the bigger picture, lets talk about how things like this attract new businesses to open here because of things like a possible LRT. I know so many people who just assume this area is so great and it doesn't need anything except more roads. This LRT with a possible GO train would be great for attracting more businesses not to mention help the existing ones that deal a lot with Toronto businesses.

And for what it's worth I don't like BRT for the same reason most people don't because I agree the public "perception" is that buses are "lower class".. Which I don't think, but if 80% of the public thinks it then it doesn't matter, they won't use them. If paying more for something that people will use, i am in favor of that. Instead of spending money on something that i know won't get used.

[dunkalunk]

If people are worried about a dedicated corridor taking up traffic lanes on King, would it not be possible to run it in mixed traffic from Victoria to Uptown with transit priority lighting? I know rapid transit is supposed to have its own dedicated corridor, but it could be upgraded as ridership increases. Would this even be worth considering for cost and safety reasons? How effective is transit priority lighting on mixed use corridors?

Weber Street needs to be widened regardless.

[notmyfriends]

So, can someone write a letter to the editor at the Record already about this guys identical biased views being regurgitated week after week after week?

[dunkalunk]

http://media.therecord.topscms.com/images/02/10/0a7a2f6f49679ff40122d3dd2dfe.jpeg

:previous: you mean this guy? Nah. I think he's suffered enough.

[waterloowarrior]

there was something about the rapid transit line at the latest waterloo city council meeting (workshop or something like that)... anyone attend?

[waterloowarrior]

update from region of waterloo (http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/8ef02c0fded0c82a85256e590071a3ce/790B281C9D0A0AC585257586005563E5/$file/E-09-043.pdf)

A Functional Design was completed in March 2009 for the short-listed route options to address
several design challenges, including navigating through the constrained downtown cores,
integration with existing road infrastructure, and access and turning movement considerations. The
Functional Design will form the technical basis of the Rapid Transit Project, for which approval from
the Ministry of the Environment will be sought under the recently approved Transit Environmental
Regulation (six month process) once a rapid transit system has been considered by Regional
Council.

A target of May 2009 is anticipated for the presentation of the preliminary preferred rapid transit
system. A panel of third party experts in the fields of transit and land use planning will be
assembled to review the EA study methodology and cost-benefit analysis. The findings of the expert
review panel will be presented to the public and Regional Council together with the preliminary
preferred rapid transit system.

[dunkalunk]

Who wants to bet that there will be at least one bit that was not mentioned in the short list alternatives that gets included in the final proposal and will make us all scratch our heads? :)

I don't get the secrecy, if it's done why not show us?

[gghtransit]

Who wants to bet that there will be at least one bit that was not mentioned in the short list alternatives that gets included in the final proposal and will make us all scratch our heads? :)

I don't get the secrecy, if it's done why not show us?

There's the option to make a Freedom of Information Act request if you don't want to wait, so long as releasing the project info early doesn't jeopardize anything there's no reason they won't give it to you.

I do have to agree though, I'm getting a little antsy waiting for this, I really want to see details of the alignment myself.

[waterloowarrior]

City of Waterloo comments on the RT line... p. 160
http://www.city.waterloo.on.ca/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/CS_CLERKS_Minutes_2009/20090406_Packet_Committee_of_the_Whole.pdf

[smably]

"Uptown Vision Committee", indeed! Read the comments starting on page 196 -- I don't know what these guys are smoking.

First they say that Uptown "is not a high speed corridor" and that the primary purpose of rapid transit should not be to move people quickly or efficiently (!). Then they complain that rapid transit will reduce traffic flow along Caroline. So we need to keep private vehicles moving quickly, but transit should be slow and inconvenient? Huh?

Also:
If rapid transit runs alongside the existing rail line [between King and Caroline], it will reduce the size of the Waterloo Square parking lot and reduce accessibility of cars to the mall. This will threaten the economic viability of the grocery store and the mall it anchors.
Where do I start? One, there is a huge parking lot right on the other side of Willis Way. There's lots of free parking by the mall. Parking should be the last of their concerns. Second, do they not realize that people will take rapid transit to the mall? Besides, as they acknowledge a bit later, better transit should lead to intensification, which will lead to more people living in Uptown, which will mean more customers. I don't know why they see transit as a threat.

Apparently they oppose LRT or any kind of BRT that would use dedicated bus lanes (i.e., any decent kind of transit). Instead, they suggest streetcars (interesting, but not enough, and it wouldn't benefit the rest of the region), or improved bus service (riiiiight).

6. What are the principles, concerns and information that your Committee thinks Council and the Region should consider in evaluating RT options in Waterloo?

...

Support the image of Waterloo as an innovative, friendly, green and attractive community which does things in a cost effective way and is not swayed by mythical figures of speeding sexy trains to nowhere except a few office buildings in downtown Kitchener
Just...wow.

So much for vision.

[zanate]

Heh, interesting. The UVC's opinion is substantially different than what the "summarized" opinions and recommendations around pp164 onwards are.

Especially the part about Technology preference (3.7, pp168) stating that (a) if BRT will reach capacity in a mere 20-25 years it may not be the best long-term decision and (b) that in mind it's still premature to recommend without better idea of capital costs... that sounds like "staff" telling UVC how little they think of the committee's reasoning.

[WatDot]

Wow... who the hell sits on these Committees and have they ever been outside of KW?? Are they able to read?? Are they under 60??

[WatDot]

Actually read under "Specific Concerns" - Accessibility.
My question has been clearly answered. I'd like to make a motion to rename the Uptown Vision Committee the "Seniors Uptown Committee". :haha:

[notmyfriends]

So then, how can one of us get on these committees?

[zanate]

So then, how can one of us get on these committees?

Frontal lobotomy and half a case of schnapps?

[gghtransit]

Wow, I've played devil's advocate for the RT project a number of times, but even I can see these Waterloo Committee Members are a little off their rocker.

Personally, I will not support curb-side RT alignments, I've seen more than enough news articles and read a few staff reports from Salt Lake City and Houston about the safety problems associated with curb-side alignments (mainly idiot motorists turning in front of trains either illegally and/or without checking their blind spots). Given the options available two-way service on whatever alignment is my personal preference.

If the Region has eliminated two-way service on King in the Uptown as an option, then IMO it should be two-way service on Caroline, not this one-way here/one-way there curbside nonsense. They could put a two-way station at Caroline and Willis Way and still drop people right in the core, it's a negligible walking distance between Caroline and King along Willis Way.

As for maintenance facilities, there's more than enough room in existing industrial areas in Waterloo to accomodate a facility, away from potential reurbanization areas and residential areas so I don't see what the committee's problem is. In the past I've voiced a preference for a facility on Phillip Street, on lands currently owned by Ratheyon (they only use 1/3 to a 1/2 of their land parcel they operate on), I wonder if that's one of the sites under consideration?

[Howl]

Whenever BRT advocates compare BRT to LRT they always say two things:

1. That BRT can carry almost as many people as an LRT; and

2. That BRT can be built a lot cheaper than LRT.

However what they don't say is you can't have both of these things at the same time.

There will always be a base ridership of people who will use the transit system no matter what form it is. The goal of any improvement to a transit system is to capture new riders, particularly those in cars. How many new riders you capture is highly dependant on the attractiveness of the system. If the public perceives a system to be fast, comfortable and convenient they are much more likely to use it. In general the public perceives LRT to be faster, smoother and more comfortable than any bus or BRT and therefore an LRT system will always end up capturing the most new riders. A very high-end BRT with sleek articulated low-floor buses that run in dedicated lanes through stations with a high level of landscaping and public art may capture almost as many riders, but that system requires at least as much capital costs to build as the LRT system. You can build a cheaper BRT system but it won't capture nearly as many riders.

Therefore any debate between BRT and LRT systems needs to start with the premise that a BRT and an LRT require approximately the same infrastructure capital costs in order to achieve similar ridership numbers. If someone makes the argument that BRT can be built cheaper then they have to abandon the BRT can carry as many people argument.
.

[WatDot]

For Waterloo Region, there are better ways to improve transit than trains, former councillor says

April 25, 2009
Jeff Outhit
RECORD STAFF

WATERLOO REGION

John Shortreed fears the worst if politicians build the rapid transit system they are studying.

"The region is about to commit to a big white elephant," warns Shortreed, a former Waterloo councillor. "The number one concern is that it's a huge risk. You're making a half-billion dollar bet."

Waterloo Region government plans to unveil a rapid transit proposal next month. Construction could launch in 2012.

Proponents say it will bring jobs and homes to underused urban neighbourhoods by increasing land values near stations. Critics agree better transit is needed but see rapid transit as a leap too far.

"I don't think it's a good idea for Waterloo, as it currently stands," said Ruth Haworth, a member of a citizens committee to advise Waterloo council on downtown issues.

Haworth fears putting trains on King Street in Waterloo will damage the only downtown that's already flourishing by frustrating traffic and parking and by discouraging cyclists and pedestrians.

"We're way too small for this," says Haworth, a transit user. "This is going to be such a white elephant that it will reduce our ability to have other good transit routes."

Rapid transit will consist of electric trains or rapid buses on the urban spine linking Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge. Construction costs for trains will exceed $306 million.

"Urban planners are driving this thing," says Shortreed, a retired University of Waterloo professor who has taught transportation planning.

"They believe it will save energy. They believe that if you build it, they will come. They believe it's the right thing to do."

But he estimates just a 10 per cent chance rapid transit will achieve its goals. He sees a 90 per cent chance of an underperforming system that drains public coffers.

UW professor Jeff Casello disagrees, saying big spending is needed to achieve big results.

"If we invest only a little bit, we are likely to have very little influence on land-use patterns," says Casello, an expert in transportation planning.

"And if we are to invest quite a bit more, then we are likely to see greater impacts on land-use changes."

One real estate study predicts rail transit will boost land values by 10 to 18 per cent near local stations.

Shortreed argues rapid transit is a bad idea because:

Other North American cities with rapid transit are much bigger and tend to have dominant downtowns, Shortreed says.

By comparison, local downtowns lack the office jobs, traffic delays and high parking fees that encourage transit use elsewhere.

Looking forward, Shortreed does not expect local downtowns to gain many jobs. He figures technology firms will continue to choose campus-style suburban locations because this suits their employees.

Casello agrees this is a small community for rapid transit by North American standards. He disagrees it needs to be bigger or will not grow bigger.

Regional Chair Ken Seiling describes Shortreed as a lone voice of scholarly dissent. Building rapid transit now will prevent land-use mistakes other cities have made and are struggling to fix, he says.

Shortreed contends politicians can achieve their goals more effectively with other transit upgrades. Examples include: More frequent buses, realigned bus routes, a limited streetcar system in Kitchener and Waterloo, development incentives and passenger conveniences.

jouthit@therecord.com

---------------------------------

That half-billion dollar bet is NOTHING compared to what the stupid auto manufacturers have been receiving from public coffers. I'm sorry, our province is becoming a pile of roadway congested crap too fast. Think about how our cities are intensifying in the region. Consider the provincial mandate/policy on urban sprawl while evaluating our city land stock. Look at social movements in respect to the environment. Compare the cost of expanding and maintaining roadways within poorly planned cities.

[smably]

Also:
Don't let vanity guide rapid-transit vote (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/526443)

I guess when you run out of reasonable objections, all you're left with is calling people who disagree with you vain. Jeff Outhit drives me crazy sometimes.

[kitchener-lrt]

"We're way too small for this," says Haworth, a transit user. "This is going to be such a white elephant that it will reduce our ability to have other good transit routes."

Can someone please inform this ignorant woman that the project will serve Kitchener, Cambridge, as well as her beloved Waterloo.
When you're living in a f*cking metropolitan area with a population of over 500,000 you're not small anymore!

Lets get those letters to the editor going!

[ForestryW]

Unfortunately I have to agree with her. As wonderful as it is that the RMOW is pushing efficient public transit, it will be way underused. We may be an urban area of 500,000 but it's 490,000 people who will never take public transit as long as they have a car in the driveway and ample parking downtown.

[urbanfan89]

Given how concentrated the region's density is along the King Street corridor, and given the ridership on the IXpress, it's reasonable to expect that LRT along this corridor will be successful.

We're not Hong Kong, but we're definitely not Dallas or Phoenix.

[dunkalunk]

It was mentioned in another thread that rapid transit line would likely not be using King Street through Uptown:
Actually, according to some Waterloo City Council minutes, the RT Project staff recently made a presentation to Waterloo Council on the proposed alignments.

They have narrowed it down to...

A ) One-Way on King to Erb to Railway and One-Way on Caroline to Allen to King
B ) Two-Way on King to Allen to Caroline to Railway.

Aparently King Street isn't wide enough to accomodate two-way service between William and the railway to accomodate two-way service; so they say.

I have to agree that there is no room to run at-grade LRT on King Street, uptown. I wonder if the people designing this have ruled out the option of tunnelling.

Something like this (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=112509077600247168599.0004684f386d5d9be4ec9&ll=43.463635,-80.525665&spn=0.018938,0.04549&t=h&z=15) could would quite nicely, and appease those worried about traffic congestion (myself included. more cars=more chance of me being hit by one on a bicycle). The Erb/Caroline intersection is already a nightmare at rush hour. Just imagine what it would turn into with LRT added into the mix.

I'm not saying that the entire line should be tunnelled, just that some strategic tunnelling both Uptown (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=112509077600247168599.0004684f386d5d9be4ec9&ll=43.463635,-80.525665&spn=0.018938,0.04549&t=h&z=15) and at King and Victoria (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=112509077600247168599.000462bd40c2ce6f0e717&t=h&z=16) would be incredibly beneficial to the speed and reliability of the line.

If we are going to build an LRT, we have to make sure to build it so it will be reliable for many years to some. If this involves spending more now to avoid traffic headaches later, then I'm all for it.

IMO, King needs to be reduced to 2 lanes total from William to Bridgeport with widened sidewalks, shared roadway with bikes, and bus bumps with the occasional left turn lane.

Now that I've finished exams, I'm all up on that letter to the editor thing.

[WatDot]

Unfortunately I have to agree with her. As wonderful as it is that the RMOW is pushing efficient public transit, it will be way underused. We may be an urban area of 500,000 but it's 490,000 people who will never take public transit as long as they have a car in the driveway and ample parking downtown.

It's not going to be ram packed the first couple years. No doubt.
Point is this is PLANNING for the future. Something this Area has been terrible at. Why we are in the state we are with our crappy roads and highways.

Now is the time to get this money from various governments. The Feds and Provincial governments won't ever give you money for a highway or a major road that you "think" will be needed in 5 years. They are almost always reactive to traffic congestion never progressive. Finally, with an environmental push, an economic stimulus push through capital expenditures and increasing populations we have an opportunity to get a piece of the pie and PLAN for the future here in the ROW.

You can pass up this opportunity and let the government give it to Toronto or the auto industry... who will just ask for more money the next year AGAIN.... or you can build something that can be expanded in a planned and efficient way.

Now to increase ridership through social change metioned, don't you think you need to provide the tools to encourage it?
If we keep saying "it will never work here" and build nothing different to encourage the desired change.... guess what, nothing will change.

[rapid_business]

/\ Some great thoughts guys. I encourage everyone to write a letter to the editor, and CC it to your councilor and mayor. I'll start that this afternoon.

Remember, most of the arguments being thrown out there by Outhit and his crew of myopic, opinionated bandits are based on their opinions of what might happen from whatever thoughts might be influencing them. Seriously, public transit in rail form will discourage biking and pedestrians? :haha: Or eat up valuable surface parking, and make everyone stay home because traffic is a 3 hour jam downtown now, and it's best to shop at the suburban store in the other direction? :rolleyes:

Get on those letters... craft them well, and polish them off.

[CMD UW]

I agree, LRT is a key investment towards developing a transportation system that will help the region grow in a differe way - densification and promoting redevelopment. I think that many of the naysayers are forgetting that KW is at a turning point and that this type of infrastructure investment will signal where the region wants to go in the future.

Stay the same course or seek change. I guess the call is up to the public.

[d_jeffrey]

As seeing how Ottawa is converting the BRT to LRT, 25 years after it was built, at 10 times the costs at the time, I suggest the councillors to really assess if they want to throw away their money for a short time, or look for decades to come.

[jcollins]

LRT is definitely a key investment that should happen. But while we are an urban area of ~500,000 people, as one of the articles states, there really isnt a dominant downtown. Will LRT cause a dominant downtown to develop? I think so. But initially, without the dominant downtown to encourage people to take a train to, ridership could suffer at the onset.

[Actonite]

It's not going to be ram packed the first couple years. No doubt.
Point is this is PLANNING for the future. Something this Area has been terrible at. Why we are in the state we are with our crappy roads and highways.
I agree with most of your post but I thought I'd point out a couple of things where planing ahead has payed of in big ways in this area.
(1)The Conestoga Parkway. Built by the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo and now owned by the province.
What would our traffic be like in the Region today with out the for sight to build the highway back when it wasn't needed that badly.
How many businesses would not have sprung up in the Region because of the lack of decent transportation infrastructure. Many argued against the highway back then but where would we be with out it?
(2)The Kitchener Memorial Auditorium. When the Aud was built about 55 years ago it was the second largest arena in the province. Only Maple Leaf Gardens was bigger. "It was far to big" was the argument at the time but in the end the building served the city and the Region perfectly over the last 45 years. Had politicians been swayed to build a 3-4 thousand seat arena we would have had to build a new one by now. The new one would have probably been around the size of the currant Aud meaning we would now be considering replacement #2.

Build for the future. If you don't do it now you will when the problems you were trying to avoid start to affect every ones lives and you will do it at a premium.
What seems like the more expensive option in the short term is all most all ways the more expensive way to go down the road.

For what it's worth I drive my car all over the Region every day. If we built an LRT system it would certainly get me out of my car on the weekends at the very least. BRT on the other hand really would not entice me to take transit.
So in my case it's true. The appeal of LRT would get me off the road and on to a train when ever possible.

[waterloowarrior]

Don't let vanity guide rapid-transit vote
April 25, 2009
JEFF OUTHIT
It's time to make up your mind about rapid transit.

Planners intend to propose a system to regional councillors May 12. It's expected to detail the technology, route, ridership, costs, benefits and staging. All the important stuff.

Council could endorse the project by June 24. Provincial approval could come by December. Construction could launch in 2012.

Critics see rapid transit as a costly white elephant. They fear it will perform badly and derail worthier transit upgrades.

Proponents say it's a visionary tool that will draw jobs and homes to underused urban neighbourhoods by hiking property values.

Approval is being fast-tracked to keep the project from stalling in red tape. So if you have something to say to politicians, it's best to say it before June 24. After that, the project will be harder to derail.

I anticipate planners will propose launching electric trains on dedicated tracks on the urban spine of Waterloo and Kitchener. I suspect startup costs may exceed $457 million.

Here's a new wrinkle. I'm hearing cheaper rapid buses may be proposed in Cambridge, with construction sooner rather than later.

There are upsides to bringing Cambridge into rapid transit early on. Planners have said the system could mix buses and trains, with one transfer point. Presumably this transfer would be in south Kitchener.

The rapid transit proposal will be a lot to digest. Do your best to judge it on its merits. Try not to let momentum, funding offers or community vanity cloud your judgment.

The project has momentum because politicians are keen on transit, infrastructure spending is all the rage, $4 million has been spent on studies, and council has put $25 million on the table to move forward.

But remember, few ride transit here. This is not going to change soon. Disregard the momentum and demand to see good reasons to go ahead.

The provincial and federal governments have said they may pay most construction costs. This is helpful but don't say yes just because other taxpayers are paying the bill. The plan still needs to make sense.

Trains have an appealing wow factor. But don't get stars in your eyes. Wanting to feel world-class is understandable but vanity is a poor reason to launch a project.

Rapid transit might be the biggest thing ever done here. Make politicians and planners persuade you their plan is smart and will work.

Jeff Outhit can be reached at 519-895-5642 and jouthit@therecord.com.

[dunkalunk]

LRT is definitely a key investment that should happen. But while we are an urban area of ~500,000 people, as one of the articles states, there really isnt a dominant downtown. Will LRT cause a dominant downtown to develop? I think so. But initially, without the dominant downtown to encourage people to take a train to, ridership could suffer at the onset.

It can argued that the fact that waterloo region doesn't have any singular dominant downtown makes it well suited to a linear rapid transit line. Because there is no single destination for commuters, peak demand on the system will be more evenly spread out. Through intensification, we could see Kitchener and Waterloo's urban core grow to reach from University Ave to Ottawa street.

[jcollins]

It can argued that the fact that waterloo region doesn't have any singular dominant downtown makes it well suited to a linear rapid transit line. Because there is no single destination for commuters, peak demand on the system will be more evenly spread out. Through intensification, we could see Kitchener and Waterloo's urban core grow to reach from University Ave to Ottawa street.

So build LRT as an avenue to help develop the downtowns?

[notmyfriends]

I find it hard to believe that a writer who is given the role that outhit has clearly been given at the record wouldn't be researching sites like this. Someone should email him some links or something.

[dunkalunk]

There are places where streetscaping can be effective, but there is limited space along the rapid transit right of way to build boulevards. Giving pedestrians as much space as possible should trump placing unusable space in the middle of the street. See the King Street Reconstruction Project (http://www.downtownkitchener.ca/news/kingstreet/) for an example of how this is being done.

[WatDot]

I agree with most of your post but I thought I'd point out a couple of things where planing ahead has payed of in big ways in this area.
(1)The Conestoga Parkway.
(2)The Kitchener Memorial Auditorium.

The Aud.. won't touch on that, as I was meaning simply roadways. I would say the Centre in the Square helped the ROW too.

The Conestoga Parkway I would question, even though I will agree that it has helped the growth of Waterloo greatly, I personally don't think it was fully planned out. A huge error that is recognized by the ROW is that there's only one major artery connecting it to the 401. The Parkway has also been neglected for expansion to the north/west ends of KW... even though usage has warranted it. But the Parkway and the planning happened way before me ... so to dispute what happened originally I can't. ;)

[Cambridgite]

When Jeff Outhit frequently criticizes this Region's low transit ridership rates as justification for not considering LRT, he is misleading people. The corridor in which LRT is slated for actually has quite high ridership and multiple routes running along it. It only matters how busy that corridor is in order to make it viable. If a bunch of loop routes in the suburbs have dismal ridership, it says nothing about the central transit corridor.