[All] Your LettertotheEditor "Rail plan will work" PLUS MY RECORD CRITICISM

[Robert Milligan]

Jane,

Thank you for the recent LRT discussions.

In your below letter you had excellent things to say except for,  
"Light rail transit would stop sprawl because its purpose is  
intensification."  What about sufficient (or better, high) middle- 
class ridership as the other (even primary) purpose (needed to  
intensify)? http://news.therecord.com/article/752516

As the Region's below "visionary" description says. the LRT's purpose  
is (first) to "move people" which to be successful means moving lots  
of middle-class people who leave their car at home. This will help  
minimize traffic jams and thus many car-only users will become  
supporters. But for this to work, at least the LRT must be much faster  
(by also using the speedier rail right-of-way), extend to south  
Cambridge's Ainslie Terminal (i.e. be long enough to attract the  
longer-distance commuters), and have sufficient capacity to meet the  
demand generated by its speed & length (thus making a difference in  
our worsening traffic jamming).

By the way, I have made many suggestions (some in my below letter,  
others in my long evolving Report) to drastically reduce the capital  
construction cost per km. so as to afford Cambridge's inclusion in  
Stage 1.  And high ridership (aided by Cambridge's LRT inclusion) --  
with much fuller LRT vehicles -- (and other additional IDEAS) will  
greatly reduce operating costs.

I make these points in more detail in my recent (included below)  
submitted letter to the Record (final version) in which they made one  
"clever" change (plus a 2nd discrediting change) that subverted my  
main argument for including Cambridge in the first (& only?) stage. So  
much for a free unbiased press! (See more specific Record criticism  
below.)

And as I've said in my evolving LRT Report, if few people -- likely  
still mostly students & the working poor -- use the LRT,  what  
incentive does a (optimistically) half-filled (short, slow) LRT have  
for developers to intensify by their new buildings?

Best wishes,
Robert




THE PROPOSED LETTER;

Less Provincial funding forces a re-design towards a more cost- 
effective light rail transit (LRT) system that could be enabled by: 1)  
political support of outside-the-box thinking by staff and consultants  
in the innovative use of proven rail technologies like Intelligent  
Transportation Systems;  2)  public/private collaborations with CP  
Rail and GEXR on bridge, underpass and track sharing; and 3) slower  
staging of the very expensive roadway Intensification Corridors.

The latter is best achieved by the first stage use of the existing  
rail right-of-way from a possible Northfield terminal to the Ainslie  
Terminal (the Ridership Corridor) that interlinks with the developing  
Intensification Corridors. (And a Ridership Corridor will dramatically  
lower transit times and have increased capacity to meet the resulting  
higher demand.)

But let's have a first stage exemplar LRT Intensification Corridor  
along K-W's King St..  Further compliance with Provincial "Places to  
Grow" policies would occur as roads are ready and more funding  
available.

And high middle class LRT ridership -- necessary de-jam traffic and  
intensify -- would be more assured if extended to Cambridge now (south  
Cambridge to RIM, K-W to ComDev), not in 2033 or 2036. Too, this would  
also help redress Cambridge's long-time unfair treatment  as listed  
recently by Claudette Miller.

Further, Claudette said correctly says that the LRT "... improves the  
health, environment, economy and travel movement within the cities ...  
(while) buses do not produce the same improvements."

She also asks, "... what (is) the advantage of (Cambridge) being ...  
within the the Region?"


WHAT THEY PRINTED:

http://news.therecord.com/article/744673




Focusing on the main disputed difference, I had written:
"And high middle class LRT ridership -- necessary de-jam traffic and  
intensify -- would be more assured if extended to Cambridge now (south  
Cambridge to RIM, K-W to ComDev), not in 2033 or 2036."

but they wrote:
"Middle class ridership on the LRT — necessary to de-jam traffic and  
intensify development — would be more assured if it is extended from  
Waterloo’s high-tech business park to Cambridge now, not in 2033 or  
2036."

Notice the highlighted sections. The 2 examples that I gave, were very  
specific examples of potential longer types of trips to illustrate the  
greater middle-class attracting power of a Cambridge extended LRT.  
Also, I had mentioned earlier in the letter a  possible Northfield  
terminal which they contradicted in their mis-inclusion of "Waterloo’s  
high-tech business park" which also made me look  inconsistent further  
detracting from the positive impact of my letter. (Citizens don't make  
the effort to write letters -- that might help better their community  
--  so that the print media can advance their own limited agenda by  
letter distortions!)

Unfortunately, communities around the World are at the mercy of a  
grossly insufficient (I'm trying to be kind) media. But three cheers  
for Internet advancement!!






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100729/5538acd2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bulletbox.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 29869 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100729/5538acd2/attachment.jpg>