[All] Towards a Regional Light Rail Transit Plan A+ (Concern 3 modified)

[Robert Milligan]

Hi All,

As my research continues -- and my thoughts and ideas keep evolving  
(keep in  mind, this is
not a Term Paper but something much more real and dynamic) -- I  am  
also writing and enhancing my potential Record article and longer  
report. Included below is the next version of this process -- although  
there is much more unfinished material on my Worksheet.

Some of you have commented and made very helpful suggestions for  
improvement. Thank you again. For those whose time is very scarce  
during this Xmas Season, maybe you might be able to sneak in a little  
time to share your thoughts -- or maybe sometime after Xmas. Even call  
me at 519-696-2288.

I plan to meet with all of the area MPs and MPPs soon (Stephen  
Woodworth today). I am
continuing my conversations with key Regional & W-K-C staff &  
politicians.

I am especially concerned about the latest possibility for "solving"  
the CN tracks and  Victoria & King station challenges -- a box  
(enclosed) tunnel, It will start north of Louisa St. going under  
Wellington St. (?) and the tracks then surfacing before Victoria. The  
underground station part -- with platforms under the streets &  
sidewalks, and with stairs & elevators -- will probably span from the  
strip mall entrance to halfway down the School of Rx building.

My box tunnel concerns include;
1) especially the very, very high cost;  2) the very long time  
disruption/detouring of King St. & its businesses during construction  
(imagine the traffic  jams on Duke & Weber!);  3) the very costly and  
dangerous  (for workers, even the community possibly depending on  
degree of volitility & toxicity) excavation of toxic soil -- at least  
in the area below King St. from Victoria to the tracks -- originating  
from both the former Kauffman (Rubber) Footwear (naptha gas dissolved  
in groundwater) and Uniroyal Chemical plants, the high cost of  
trucking it to a a special toxic materials dump in Windsor(?), and  
then the exposed toxic soil would very likely be "sealed" (likely very  
costly & dangerous in itself, e.g. http://www.usluk.com/nufins/_assets/library/Aquatard%20FWR%20Coshh.pdf) 
  before building the walls and base of the tunnel) but;  4) (in the  
process they may cause) a possible rupture of the aquatard (thanks  
Lulu; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatard &
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/environment-book/groundwaterremediation.html) 
  and possible contamination of deeper (mumicipal) aquafers (if they  
don't do proper -- but costly -- hydrogeological studies first);  5)  
flooding from exponentially increasing weather extremes (unanticipated  
by slow-to-change engineering standards);  6) a slightly inconvenient  
GO-Train interconnection (the GO-Train station would likely start just  
past King & extend towards Duke with the current plan);  7) the use of  
very costly land for a very small -- relative to possible future  
demand , even if it is moderate -- Hub defined by King-Duke-Victoria- 
tracks;  8) the tunnel is an ideal terrorist target -- that will  
become more obvious as these potential dangers increase over time in  
their likelihood;  9) no significant enhancement of UofW Kitchener  
Campus (c.f. what I will be proposing); 10) probably will make a  
future road tunnel difficult -- but maybe not.

My next email on this will likely include a drawing/map & description  
of my alternative HUB/'UofW Kit' proposal.

Best wishes to all and have a great holiday season,
Robert

PS: The (possible) Record article version will be in an easier-to-read  
style. Suggestions here would be most appreciated (I have 1 very good  
response on this already.)



Towards a Regional Light Rail Transit Plan A+:  Rationale &  
Improvement Ideas for an Intelligent Transit System
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's current thinking about a  
review of all programs and services -- the resulting cuts will be  
specified in the March Budget -- in light of an unprecedented deficit  
of nearly $25 billion: "We're not just going to cut everything -- that  
is unthinking. ... . We're setting our priorities. Because we are  
doing this it means we won't be able to do some things and it may mean  
that we're going to do less of some things ... . (We) will soon move  
to public consultations so that people can understand and weigh-in on  
the coming changes."  Waterloo Region Record, Oct. 28, 2009

The current great World economic and environmental crises are forcing  
governments to better regulate and plan the use of those scarce  
resources for which they are responsible. Of necessity they will be  
reviewing all large ambitious projects and rejecting or downgrading  
many.

Proposers of these large projects will need to seriously consider  
making project improvements so as to optimize meeting the anticipated  
new priorities of their governmental funders. Such a critical step  
will minimize the chances of project rejection or massive cut backs.  
This is especially necessary for large projects costing much more than  
originally anticipated.

Certainly the Canadian and Ontario governments want to do what is best  
for Waterloo Region -- perhaps Canada's leading innovative area. But  
while the vast majority of people in Waterloo Region likely support a  
Light Rail Transit (LRT) approach to our Rapid Transit  Initiative  
(RTI) , a "noisy" minority has expressed doubts -- like with Climate  
Change -- about the success of the current LRT-based project design  
(let's call it "Plan A").

Majority local support would be no guarantee of Canadian and Ontario  
government funding. To better ensure that the government funding will  
be forthcoming -- especially with the looming massive Provincial and  
Federal deficits with no economic upturn in sight -- it might be both  
a good investment and a wise course of action for Waterloo Region to  
explore the possibility of greatly improving the cost-effectiveness of  
the RTI project.

To make best use of precious time and other resources, the RTI team  
could creatively build on the approved ideas in RTI's "Plan A" thereby  
transforming it into the better "Plan A+".  But the Region -- like  
other areas in Ontario & Canada where major projects have financial  
approval pending -- needs to be given the financial security, time,  
and encouragement to "think outside of the box" to improve project  
cost-effectiveness.

The Provincial and Federal governments could induce the Waterloo  
Regional Government to take the time to do this RTI project  
enhancement  by -- for example -- each putting their share of the (~ 
$800M) RTI  project Stage 1 funding into a "secure" account (with an  
agreed-upon automatic inflation adjusting mechanism). A  6 (or ?)  
month deadline to create the improved "Plan A+" could be negotoated.

Probably an approach such as the above could be broached successfully  
with the two higher levels of government. But first let's take a look  
at our W-K-C transportation situation and explore some ideas --  
towards a possible "Plan A+" --  that might give indication of the  
potential for improving the cost-effectiveness of  "Plan A".


Everybody's Common Problem

What all individuals in our Region agree on is that we want to avoid  
the frequent traffic jams on our urban roads and expressways --  
especially when we travel longer distances to work   within W-K-C. But  
rush hours especially are times of growing road congestion as our  
population expands in our W-K-C urban periphery .

Significantly increasing the car-capacity of our crowded Regional  
roads -- or building by-passing highways (Conestoga Expressway or Hwy  
24 Cambridge bypass) -- is either very expensive (Franklin Blvd.) or  
impossible (W-K-C's King St.).

Also look at the many millions of extra dollars the MTO is spending to  
expand the capacity of Highway 8 and the 401 because they serve as   
the main connecting corridor between the Conestoga Expressway and  
Hespler Road.

Further, most of us want to encourage greater urban core  
intensification to protect our cherished countryside from urban  
sprawl. But the Region's current LRT design -- that removes car lanes  
while not sufficiently decreasing car use -- may increase further the  
chronic jamming on intensification-targeted roads, e.g. King between  
William and Victoria.  And that will discourage intensification  
efforts because many potentially new dwellers on King will still want  
to use their car but not on impaired roads .

Traffic jams also waste fuel, cause our vehicles to pollute the air  
more, undermine economic and social obligations, increases our blood  
pressure, ... -- generally making this Region a less attractive area  
to live in.  Something must be done soon to minimize our accelerating  
urban traffic jams!

Our near-future green (electric, hydrogen, ...) cars will not be able  
to fly!  Mini-monorail -- or some other new transit technology -- may  
be proven in 10 years or so.  Foresight tells us that we must develop  
a much better transit solution very soon -- such as "Plan A+"  might  
offer. Otherwise the resulting hyper-jams will cause a greater  
decrease in our quality of life. This will translate into property  
devaluation, the loss of talent and corporations, etc.


Inappropriate Weighting of LRT Objectives

A lot of money, time and effort has been invested in Waterloo Region's  
Rapid Transit Initiative thus far. After the Regional Government  
decided on a very costly 2-stage LRT ($800Mx2x2?) implementation with  
urban core re-development intensification as its main objective, there  
seems to be a delay in major funding from the Federal and Provincial  
Governments. Could there be a connection &/or an opportunity to  
improve the LRT project design?

The RTI project investment may not have maximized cost-effectiveness  
because the Region's "Plan A" proposal puts the cart before the horse.  
The very heavy weighting by the Region of the intensification  
objective has been at the unnecessary expense of the other  
interrelated key objective of high ridership to decrease car use. As I  
will show later, this excessive weighting also hurts intensification  
itself -- thus putting project success at risk.

Further adding to RTI project risk is that LRT intensification effects  
may not  be sufficiently proven. The need for intensification proving  
in our very unique W-K-C urban area is implied  by the statements of a  
key member of the pro-LRT group TriTAG in a recent email to me.

He said, "The magnitude of development the Portland Streetcar (cited  
in the Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure's Places to Grow  
documentation, "Urban Case Studies: Intensification Corridors") has  
attracted would not be tenable here. Portland is a large city that put  
a (slow) streetcar through an old industrial area ripe for  
repurposing. ...".

Our LRT situation on King, etc. is further different from Portland in  
that ours would be faster, on a dedicated lane and make less frequent  
stops. Would this help or hinder intensification?
More generally, is the very high weighting of the intensification  
objective problematic?

The result of the current weighting of objectives is RTI's "Plan A"   
foundation is built on  an uncertain intensification effect.  Also  
this 2-stage design project proposes as our desperately-needed medium- 
scale people mover:  a single corridor (mostly roads) LRT which is  
slightly-rapid (maybe slightly faster than the I-Express and much  
slower than a car), ultra-costly (from  installing mostly along  
streets), and with insufficient capacity (limited speed & LRT  
length) !!!

An improved LRT  design -- a "Plan A+" -- is essential. Its features  
must be such that it will have the attraction-power and capacity to  
serve the very large numbers of  people who need to be persuaded to  
use transit more and their cars less. This hi-capacity LRT could run  
from a Northfield Dr. station in Waterloo to Cambridge's Ainslie St  
Terminal.

Hopefully the "Plan A+" (Stage 1) LRT intensification proving track  
along K/W's King St. will be successful --  the criteria for which we  
have not yet developed. Then, this success may also demonstrate that  
an LRT investment along an appropriate street can generate significant  
new municipal tax revenues.

The great implication here would be that Waterloo Region could better  
justify to their taxpayers our use of low interest and long term Bank  
of Canada loans to fund a larger share of the Stage 2 LRT  
intensification of Charles St., Ottawa St. and Hespler Rd.


The Need for a "Plan A+"

It is mostly high school, college and university students who use our  
bus-based Grand River Transit  -- out of economic necessity. Few  
commuters use the bus primarily because it takes too long to get to  
work and  because it is very uncomfortable compared to their cars.

So we need an LRT urban-core transit system which has high capacity,  
efficient routing, high speed, just-in-time bus-connections, and  
comfort . Such a designed LRT system will have significant appeal  
particularly for those who must commute a long distance along our  
urban core and for those who want to use the GO-Train to travel to  
work here or the GTA. And if we can maximize the quality and cache of  
both our LRT and interconnecting buses, then even more people will use  
our transit system.

Likely a large majority in Waterloo Region would support a well- 
designed LRT-core system which includes minimizing the use of scarce  
road space. A minority -- some of whom describe themselves as  
"taxpayers" -- have expressed some worries. They mention what they  
view as the very high costs of the present LRT design, its likely lack  
of success and its disruptive effects on some businesses and  
communities. The worst of their fears are perhaps  best captured by  
the circulating expressions "white elephant" and "boondoggle".

But doubts about the current design of our proposed Regional Light  
Rail Transit have been voiced by LRT friend and foe alike. More  
specifically, these concerns include: 1) the much higher initial and  
possible final costs;  2) likely insufficient ridership and  
intensification effect; 3) the LRT slowness and traffic disturbances  
along city streets. We might add the possible damaging of the Region's  
image as a very smart multi-dimensional innovator.

Those of us who strongly support an LRT but who have the above  
concerns about the current design -- "Plan A" -- are being "scared" by  
the "facts" of the current situation into acceptance of the current  
LRT design. This argument  for acceptance is made in a circulated  
email by a local very successful digital entrepreneur and political  
influencer:

"... There is no Plan B.  Either we choose this current transit system  
being offered to us with the Provincial and Federal governments  
already agreeing to pay 99% (likely not this much & with more  
uncertainty) of the costs for us or we reject it ... and have nothing  
but our current congested roads/expressway for decades.  With the  
massive government deficits looming, yet lots of cash on the table  
right now for shovel-ready infrastructure if we don't act now there is  
not likely going to be any other alternatives or funding coming for  
decades."

Yes there is no radically different LRT "Plan B". The existing "Plan  
A" has  excellent approved "diamond-in-the-rough" ideas for  
intensifying building re-development on key Regional roads. To  
minimize financial and reputational risk, the certainty of the very  
costly intensification-by-LRT process should be proven in Stage 1  
before being fully implemented in a Stage 2. Generally the above  
serious concerns about "Plan A" could be addressed via enhancement and  
addition to its ideas so as to formulate a more viable "Plan A+".

We are in a time of scarce monetary and other resources especially in  
relation to solving our great environmental crises of atmosphere,  
hydrosphere and geosphere. All major (environmental, etc.) projects,  
of necessity, must be given a tough second look before precious  
government funding proceeds. This will help ensure that objectives are  
weighted appropriately and the means proposed for achieving them are  
sufficiently cost effective.

We are an innovation-exemplar Region to the World and must act  
accordingly, especially in any large project that can model Climate  
stabilizing solutions. But knowing of the potential viability of a  
better "Plan A+" -- as the below New Ideas suggest -- yet still then  
taking the Provincial and Federal money and plowing ahead with an  
insufficiently cost effective Plan A would be environmentally,  
socially and economically unbecoming (or worse).

The proposed "Plan A+" could not only include proving the best ideas  
of "Plan A", but use leading-edge innovative ideas to reduce cost and  
improve performance.  Such innovations at least could embody an  
Intelligent Transit System, with Intelligent Light Rail Transit (I- 
LRT) as its core sub-system. (See http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/engineering/its/strategy.shtml)

The "Plan A+" approach will  hopefully/likely shift us from a very  
costly misstep to Transit Innovation Exemplars -- of which all  
citizens and "taxpayers" can be proud. And this would be more in the  
Waterloo and Golden Triangle tradition of collaborative creative  
excellence. What a worthy legacy to leave future generations!


New Ideas for "Plan A+"

It probably would cost less than $800M in its Stage 1 if we used/ 
shared the largely under-utilized rail corridor -- its land, rails and  
bridges, ... --  mostly owned by the Region, CN, CP and Cambridge,  
e.g. a track sharing arrangement with CP to use their track from  
Fountain St. to Hespler Rd. during the morning and evening rush hours.

This implies the use of LRT's that can run on standard gauge track as  
is done in many places including the River Line from Camden to Trenton  
NJ, which shares track with heavy freight that mostly runs at night.  
The O-Train in Ottawa also shares the track with heavy freight. (See http://www.riverline.com/ 
  & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_O-Train)

The new design could have characteristics of an Intelligent LRT (I- 
LRT) System by using a GPS computer controller that:
1) makes possible the use of the CN & CP innovation to increase the  
capacity of a 1-track mainline by building a longer side-track and  
regulating that train's speed (so as to arrive at the cross-back  
switch "just" as the other train passes);
2) also enables further 1-track by-passing using 2 tracks at stations;
3) makes possible better "just-in-time" connections with cross-linking  
buses.

The separate high-capacity 1-track rail corridor would indirectly --  
by drawing significant numbers of drivers from their cars all along  
the W-K-C urban corridor -- contribute towards less congested, quieter  
and generally more pleasant Regional roads like K/W 's King Street.
Hespler Rd. will probably show no obvious traffic improvement until an  
eastern Highway 24 bypass is built.

Because of the uncertain intensification effect of running a track(s)  
along specified Regional roads such as K/W's King, Charles & Ottawa  
Sts. and Cambridge's Hespler Rd. -- and at a very, very high cost --  
the 1st stage of "Plan A+" should include a 1-track intensity-proving  
section (King between William & Victoria) that ties into the Hi- 
Capacity LRT rail corridor.

The existing road space on King could be designed for smoother traffic  
flow as follows:
1 LRT track in the middle "lane", 2 extra-wide traffic lanes (so car  
breakdowns can be bypassed), bus stop "turn in spaces" after  
intersections, and separate left turning lanes.

The fewer cars and smoother flow on King St. would help make it more  
attractive for  (green?) re-development intensification.

With just one track on King St., space for 2 additional "car" lanes  
could be restored if excessive traffic jamming occurred because of the  
removal 2 of 4 lanes. If all goes well, then the same approach could  
be continued elsewhere even north on King possibly as far as the  
Conestoga Mall but skirting around the downtown via Caroline and  
Bridgeport.

Two separate but complementary 1-track LRT corridors -- crossovers at  
stations and between some stations --  where one is an 'intensifying  
road corridor' and the other a 'higher speed/capacity rail corridor'  
-- also provides insurance against an accidents on 1 corridor shutting  
down the whole system. If it was a 2-track 1-corridor system, likely  
an accident on 1 track would affect the operability of the other.

Other major ideas will be separately detailed including the use of 2  
maps (comparitive
Plan A & A+ routings, and the 'Kitchener Multimodal Hub'/'Expanded  
UofW Kit. Campus'),
favoured LRT pictures, and semi-detailed descriptions.


Conclusions

W-K-C forms a broad urban corridor whose wide core we wish to  
intensify. A keystone for successful development intensification of  
the  W-K-C urban core is to maintain fast people movement along it by  
a speedy/hi-capacity Intelligent Light Rail Transit (I-LRT) that runs  
off-road with 1-track along our under-utilized rail corridors.

Intensified re-development along and near selected Regional roads in  
our urban cores could occur more directly as the other  
(interconnected) 1-track I-LRT operated along the chosen Regional roads.

With a balanced emphasis on the 2 most important interrelated LRT  
objectives of 'redevelopment intensification' and 'high ridership to  
decrease car use'. then "Plan A+" could -- partly as suggested here  
but further enhanced by staff, consultants, and other citizens -- 
likely generate much more LRT cost -effectiveness than the current   
approved "Plan A".

We need to play our part in helping both our Provincial and Federal  
Government's in adapting to the new reality. This reality is one of  
less government money for project funding generally and of a very  
great need to fund especially environmental sustainability (ES)  
projects.

Yes, ES projects will -- of survival-necessity -- have a higher  
priority. But we must better show -- in a provable manner -- how our  
ES projects are such. And we must also demonstrate an ability to  
enhance all proposed projects so that they are much more cost- 
effective, so that we do more with less, so that we  become  
Collaborative Synergistic Innovators.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20091222/c0edab18/attachment.html>