[All] Current Sense of Direction in My Research for Waterloo Region's LRT
Robert Milligan
mill at continuum.org
Sat Jul 31 19:04:26 EDT 2010
High All,
For those who might be interested as to the latest in my efforts to
help enhance the Region's current LRT system design, here are some
indications (I hope to complete the latest version of my LRT report
soon):
1. The overall approach that I am working towards is a within-budget
($790 or possibly less once staff find time to make some important
specific track construction and electrification cost information
available) enhanced LRT systems design that a much larger number of
Regional citizens (& beyond) consider will be potentially a GREAT
SUCCESS in the 1st stage. Specifically it would: 1) get a majority of
exclusive car-users supporting the LRT (this muting TST & their
friends); 2) create an incentive for subsequent further Provincial (&
Federal) funding; 3) greatly reduce the cost per km.; ... . It
essentially involves: i) a slower staging of intensification (the
Province gave us less funds -- John Milloy told me they would
consider what the Region might propose in this direction), ii)
significantly increasing the LRT's average speed and extending track
length so as to help attract more of the middle-class who live in K-W
but work in Cambridge (& vice versa); iii) greater collaboration with
CP & GEXR on bridge, underpass and track sharing; iv) all of i) to
iii) are enabled by much greater use of the rail right-of-way
(Ridership Corridor) which the Intensification Corridors would
interlink with as each is built (beginning with a K/W King Street
exemplar for attracting developers and government funding to
subsequent IC's -- my single track approach (with a passing track at
some stops) on Intensification Corridors will make KIng St from
downtown Waterloo to WLU and Conestoga Mall a possible future
additional intensification route.
2. As I have communicated to some Regional officials, I have been
interested in the IDEA of a LEAN approach to the LRT. They indicated
that this was not new (mostly in regard to management practice I
suspect). Well my intuition told me that more of this type of thinking
had to be applied to the LRT system design to help make it much more
cost-effective. Somehow, I discovered FRUGAL ENGINEERING (FE) as
developed in India to which big multi-national corporations like
Siemens and GE are gravitating in terms of collaborating with Indian
corporations and universities. I am now exploring how to best apply FE
to the LRT system design. You might want to check out the 2 websites
here:
A new Indian Benchmark: “Innovation and ‘Indovation’ (frugal
engineering, ..) are really the key to taking us forward, ” says
Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “... We will be able to
produce more from less.” http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=855
1 & http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6762f77a-77de-11df-82c3-00144feabdc0.html
3. "The powertrain of the electric Focus has been designed so it can
be swapped relatively easily in place of the gasoline engine under the
hood", see http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/05/electric-ford-focus-on-sale-in-2011.html
. This suggests that the same concept+ could be used with diesel-
electric LRTs. To elaborate, in light of the Fprd Focus and other new
battery-only vehicles about to be introduced, just imagine what a
great leap forward it would be if we used: a) new proven battery
technology for normal running (as in the Calirornia-approved Proterra
bus, see http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?NewsID=14391 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altairnano)
; b) ultra-capacitors (as in some Siemens and Bombardier LRT
approaches) for capturing braking energy then using it to accelerate;
c) temporarily displace on-board electrical energy and capture braking
energy by installing overhead wires (or catenary) on the Shantz Hill
section of track; and d) install re-charging overhead wires as the LRT
terminals are approached so that the current 10 minutes required for
battery recharging (like the lithium titainate battery in the Proterra
bus) does unduly delay the LRT by recharging at the terminals alone.
Doing this will not only lead to more efficient use of electricity but
also essentially remove the very ugly overhead wires, the 2 buried
stray current wires, and the system of utility poles, distribution
wires and transformers all needed for LRT system electrification --
and much money will be saved on both capital and operating costs.
Please note that various others that may have an interest in the LRT
are receiving bcc's.
Best wishes,
Robert
PS: While it is much more complete than just this, here is the
tentative new beginning my evolving LRT Report:
IDEAS to Enhance our LRT: Towards world-class pioneering sustainable
innovation
Part of the Waterloo Benchmark: "In the next decade, the university is
committed to building a better future for Canada and the world by
championing innovation and collaboration to create solutions relevant
to the needs of today and tomorrow."
"About Waterloo", University of Waterloo http://uwaterloo.ca/aboutuw/
A new Indian Benchmark?: “Innovation and ‘Indovation’ (frugal
engineering, ..) are really the key to taking us forward, ” says
Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “... We will be able to
produce m ore from less.” http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=85
51 & http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6762f77a-77de-11df-82c3-00144feabdc0.html
To get it right: "(We need) to think outside the traditional light
rail box. ... . (NJ's River LINE is) not only an alternative to the
automobile, but is also helping to re-energize the historic
communities it links together." Al Fazio, US LRT executive and
professor. (See APPENDIX 4)
Relative to our size, currently Waterloo Region is probably the most
innovative area in our fast-changing World. A much stronger interest
in sustainable innovation -- enriched by mutually synergistic
collaborations such as in Indian-pioneered frugal engineering -- would
help us maintain our innovative lead. See http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS91739036620100707
& http://www.cdl.com.sg/sustainabilityreport2009/ceftb.html
Then our very great unique sustainable innovation abilities within our
smaller-scale tri-city area would make us the ideal location to
innovatively green-transform and showcase a wide range of technologies
both mobile and stationary. Our Rapid Transit Initiative's proposed
light rail transit (LRT) system would be a good initial focus.
Presently, the key Rapid Transit fact is that only a well-designed
(optimal speed, length, capacity, comfort, interconnectedness,
intelligence, ...) LRT system would attract enough middle class car-
drivers so as to de-jam our urban roads at "rush hours". Such an LRT
system could be integrated with smart bus routing (and the intercity
GO-Train) and incorporate a Cambridge-extended rail right-of-way.
That the LRT could be viewed as a means to create a less stressful and
more timely commute to and from our hi-tech, etc. jobs -- by LRT or
car -- is a very good reason for us all to support an LRT, especially
if the cost per km. can be drastically decreased!
Further, initial leading-edge green innovative ideas in all aspects of
the LRT system -- energy. materials, track-bridge-underpass use, LRT &
bus route design, collaborative approaches, controls, ... -- will help
create an ultra-successful green rapid transit system that we are
proud to ride on or tell distant friends about.
And the fact and the promise of continuously implemented leading-edge
green innovations -- as they become available to our adaptable LRT
platform -- would help generate the on-going magnetic-effect needed to
be a perennial World-class LRT exemplar. (And openness to disruptive
green innovations that would upgrade, complement or eventuully replace
the LRT would be a requisite.)
Certainly, Regional Council and staff -- led by very successful long-
serving Chair Ken Seiling -- should be commended for their very strong
support of our truly important light rail transit (LRT) system. It has
the potential to help give this area David Johnston's "smart
infrastructure necessary for a future Knowledge Capital of Canada".
Yes, this light rail transit LRT project is our most complex and
expensive ($790M) urban infrastructure challenge ever. Scarce tax
money -- federal, provincial, and municipal -- will be invested. As
well, Waterloo Region's reputation for leading-edge technological
innovation will be influenced by the success -- or not -- of the LRT
system design.
But. analysis of the current LRT system design indicates some serious,
yet advantageously surmountable, track-routing and other flaws. These
flaws would not only affect the attainment of the project's principal
goals of high middle-class ridership and high urban-core
intensification but also greatly inflate the cost.
With so much at stake, the LRT system design's cost-effectiveness
needs to be optimized -- reducing its risk in the process. This can be
largely achieved if the LRT system design is enhanced at least by
proven rail transportation IDEAS. But more, the design must meet the
very high "Waterloo benchmarks" for innovation and collaboration set
by the University of Waterloo and our hi-tech businesses.
Such IDEAS will be found, created and used to great advantage only if
politicians and staff are willing and able to "think outside the
traditional light rail box".
But the Region's current approach to the LRT system design is just the
opposite. Despite our World crises demanding very innovative World
class design -- especially in all large projects -- their approach
remains the conventional "stovepipe" where past LRT designs are
repeated despite the uniqueness of our urban transportation
infrastructure.
Goal achievement problems
At the foundation of the Region's proposed LRT system design are the
two principal goals. High middle-class ridership: reduces car use
thereby decreasing traffic congestion. High urban-core
intensification: helps lessen urban sprawl while increasing the tax
base along and near the tri-city route.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100731/b722193a/attachment.html>
More information about the All
mailing list