[All] Fwd: More About "Attracting Scarce F&P Government Funds for our LRT+"
Robert Milligan
mill at continuum.org
Mon Jun 7 23:21:21 EDT 2010
FYI
R
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Robert Milligan <mill at continuum.org>
> Date: June 7, 2010 8:28:06 PM GMT-04:00
> To: Chair Ken Seiling <sken at region.waterloo.on.ca>, CAO Mike Murray <mmike at region.waterloo.on.ca
> >
> Cc: Nancy Button <bnancy at region.waterloo.on.ca>, Darshpreet Bhatti <bdarshpr at region.waterloo.on.ca
> >, Becky Schlenvogt <sbecky at region.waterloo.on.ca>
> Subject: More About "Attracting Scarce F&P Government Funds for our
> LRT+"
>
>
> Ken & Mike,
>
> Let me make it perfectly clear that some problems alluded to are not
> necessarily official positions of organizations involved but every
> LRT-related IDEA that I represent is a well-founded suggestion.
> However, I am communicating about serious Regional problems --
> important to the future of both our citizens and businesses -- that
> have to be solved at least with an enhanced LRT system design made
> possible at least by much greater Region of Waterloo, City of
> Cambridge, CP & GEXR synergistic collaboration.
>
> A viable LRT includes an affordable and effective Cambridge LRT NOW
> and not in 2036!!! -- the actual not-officially-communicated target
> a Regional politician informed me of recently. We need Cambridge's
> LRT inclusion to at least boost K-W ridership (hence intensification
> effect), improve Regional unity and generally advance the Region.
>
> Generally, the LRT system design should give more emphasis to
> ridership. Then at least the Cambridge section LRT will have many
> more riders than current estimates that show insufficiency -- a
> passive projection based mostly on the current student & working
> poor riders. This would be because more middle class car drivers
> will be attracted to a much faster LRT -- an active projection based
> on intervention by better design.
>
> Since the previous email on May 28, "Attracting Scarce F&P
> Government Funds for our LRT+", I have informally made some progress
> with both GEXR and CP towards possible time-locked track-sharing.
> Integral to making very significant progress with both of them is
> assisting CP in implementing the best solution to their track
> (safety, grade climbing & river- track wipeout ) problems. This is
> very important to help secure Toyota's future in Cambridge by
> helping CP in turn secure safer and more functional rail access to
> the Cambridge plant -- and help avoid a possible very costly CP/
> Toyota rail disaster (waiting-to-happen) in the process!
>
> To this end I hope that some key Regional and Cambridge staff will
> be able to better use their intelligence so as to overcome their
> irrational fears of CP rail crossing the back part of Riverside
> Park-- even if done very tastefully and for very, very important
> reasons pertaining to human safety and preserving Toyota jobs at
> least!!
>
> So to repeat somewhat from the previous email, this is a slightly
> modified and enhanced draft of an expanded LRT article in which I
> use more new IDEAS to try to give the Provincial and Federal
> Governments more reasons -- beyond an enhanced LRT system design --
> why they should give us scarce funds for the Region's LRT project.
> To this end, I am doing very original thinking about this wider
> area's future -- and an LRT network's vital role -- which no other
> individuals are doing by themselves.
>
> I also again try to build on the shoulders of the Region's greatest
> visionary, UofW President David Johnston. (I hope that David stays
> in this area -- that he has helped shape so much --after his
> retirement and that he will play a continuing transformational
> visionary-leadership role.)
>
> And of course I'm very open to suggestions for changes, even major
> changes, in the IDEAS or manner of expression.
>
> Best wishes,
> Robert
>
> PS: Most of the changes/enhancements are in the bottom part.
>
>
>
> IDEAS to Enhance our LRT: Towards world-class pioneering sustainable
> innovation
>
> "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." http://uwaterloo.ca/aboutuw/
>
>
> "(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)
>
>
> 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
> design that has the potential to help give this area the smart
> infrastructure necessary for a future Knowledge Capital of Canada.
>
> Yes, this light rail transit LRT project is our most complex and
> expensive ($1B+) 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. It would be catalyzed by
> the LRT and new bylaws. Such intensification efforts are strongly
> supported by Provincial Places to Grow policies.
>
> Outside LRT experts and Regional staff say that these interrelated
> goals should be balanced, that is given a similar weighting. But
> such intended goal balancing is not achieved in the current LRT
> system design nor is goal balancing alone sufficient for project
> design success.
>
> In fact, for optimal cost-effectiveness the goals should
> "collaborate" to their greater mutual benefit, i.e. be synergistic
> where 1+1=3+. And a synergistic "collaboration" of the LRT goals of
> high ridership and high intensification can also be much better
> achieved by "thinking outside the traditional light rail box".
>
> The reality of the current LRT system design -- specifically its
> track-route design -- is that it will cause the project's goals to
> "fight" each other in parts of the routing -- the intensification
> corridors. That is, as the LRT necessarily passes through an
> intensification corridor, the average speed (ridership's key factor)
> would be counteracted by a greater frequency of stops
> (intensification's key factor).
>
> In the Region's intensification corridor design, they were forced to
> cut back on the frequency of stops
> so that speed did not suffer too much. This makes their
> intensification corridor design sub-optimal compared to what could
> be possible!
>
> Relative to a rail right-of-way -- despite dedicated LRT lanes and
> traffic light control -- an optimally designed LRT road
> intensification corridor will always have a significantly slower
> average speed because of: the close proximity of other vehicles and
> many pedestrians, the many intersections, greater accident
> proneness, and the higher frequency of stops necessary for optimal
> intensification.
>
> Further, because an LRT traveling on a road intensification corridor
> will have a slower average speed and be limited in LRT vehicle
> length, it will have much less ridership capacity than LRT vehicles
> operating on a rail right-of-way.
>
> As a result, LRT road intensification corridors -- and roads used
> mainly as LRT route-connectors like Frederick St. -- will create
> speed and capacity bottlenecks. This would occur because the current
> LRT route-design forces the LRT vehicles to use these road
> corridors -- a better alternative route is currently not available .
>
>
> Ridership Corridors to the Rescue
>
> Why spend as much as $billions on an LRT system design likely to be
> disappointing? And can the key track-route design problems -- not
> yet recognized by the conventional-thinking experts -- be solved?
> Can the potential of our unique transportation infrastructure be
> better adapted to and utilized? But first, let's look at things
> from a different perspective using an analogy from physics,
> specifically electrical circuits.
>
> The Region's LRT track-route design might be called a "series" (vs.
> "parallel") type because all vehicles travel along basically the
> same routing. This is analogous to an electrical circuit where
> electrons travel through "devices" that can be in series or in
> parallel -- or both.
>
> Two minor exceptions occur where the two tracks on a road are split
> onto two "parallel" roads. This happens in the downtowns of
> Kitchener and Waterloo where the preferred roads have sufficient
> road capacity for only one track.
>
> Eureka! The current LRT track-route design partially uses the rail
> right-of-way and in a "series" manner. So let's use this concept
> more fully. "Why not" extend the "parallel" road idea to the whole
> rail right-of-way that essentially runs in a "parallel" -- and often
> concurrent -- manner to the current LRT track-route design?
>
> This new "parallel" rail right-of-way corridor would overlay the
> current track-route design. It would run from a new Northfield
> terminal to the Ainslie Terminal. To describe its intent, let's call
> it the Ridership Corridor and interconnect it intermittently to the
> "parallel" intensification corridors.
>
> With such a ridership corridor the bottlenecks on the
> intensification (and connection) road corridors can be by-passed by
> LRT vehicles that have picked up riders traveling a longer distance.
> Also, stop frequency on the intensification corridors can now be
> optimized because lost time can be recovered upon switching onto the
> faster Ridership Corridor -- and this time-saving means better
> intensification.
>
> Let's use the King Street South LRT intensification corridor as a
> specific example. How could the relevant section of the rail right-
> of-way routing (part of the Ridership Corridor) be configured so
> that it would be both "parallel" to and interconnect with this
> intensification corridor?
>
> First, use the Iron Horse Trail from Caroline Street to the CN
> mainline -- there are many US precedents for converting trails into
> rail/trails with at least a separating fence. Two tracks would be
> used except possibly between Caroline and John Streets. A station at
> Union Blvd. would attract riders from Sun Life and help intensify
> Belmont St, (so designated by Kitchener).
>
> Second, build a CN mainline underpass -- at a 45 degree angle -- so
> that the 2 LRT tracks can extend along the south-side of the CN
> mainline right-of-way to a new multimodal HUB between Joseph and
> King Streets. This new section of the LRT routing at least would
> make a very expensive and problematic (toxins, flooding, etc.) 2-
> track LRT tunnel/station under King St. and the CN mainline no
> longer necessary.
>
> The King Street South LRT intensification corridor and the proposed
> "parallel" rail right-of-way would
> interconnect on Caroline at Allen St. and the Kitchener HUB. The
> Kings South intensification corridor would connect initially to the
> HUB by simply crossing CN's mainline and spur line at a 45 degree
> angle towards the west. If needed in the future, the HUB connection
> could be made from the west part of Wellington St. via a CN track
> overpass/station.
>
> And now possibly, if the current HUB property (King-Victoria-
> Duke-'CN line') were released , then combined with the adjacent
> Breithaupt St. properties, we could have a potentially new UofW
> Kitchener Research and Technology Park!
>
> This is but one side-benefit that could result indirectly from the
> new IDEA of an interconnected Ridership Corridor. But let's explore
> more of the ridership corridor's potential.
>
> Just imagine an LRT vehicle traveling on the ridership corridor that
> significantly "shrinks" trip time by the combined effect of its
> higher speed and capacity, its rapid acceleration and braking, its
> just-in-time bus connections and better bus routing, its less
> frequent stations and shorter end-to-end route, its mostly double
> tracks and its off-road "protection" from accident delays.
>
> Mostly it would be very similar to NJ's successful River LINE but be
> electrified. (See enclosed photo &
> http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_nj002.htm)
>
> The ridership corridor would also be the "success engine" that
> battles traffic congestion by attracting many middle class people
> out of their cars. This will help clean our air and make driving a
> more enjoyable experience for those who must use their cars. Our
> quality of life will be enhanced so that businesses and universities
> prosper more.
>
>
> "Success Engine" for Intensification also
>
> In addition, the ridership corridor would be a "Success Engine" for
> intensification in two ways.
>
> Firstly, its own less frequent stations would help the area around
> them intensify. Important new areas that would be intensified would
> be Belmont St. (Union Blvd. Station), Queen St (Queen St. Station)
> and the Dundas-Beverly area (Beverly St. Station).
>
> Secondly, it would help make intensification corridors more
> successful. The aura of the LRT system's great ridership success
> will create demand for working and living space in the
> intensification corridor. And the ridership corridor's much lower
> average trip time will greatly contribute towards decreasing trip
> times for riders starting in an intensification corridor.
>
> And as previously stated, the intensification corridors could now be
> designed with the optimal frequency of stops for intensification
> purposes.
>
> Our stage one intensification corridor would be K-W's King Street
> South, The example of its success would soon inspire developers and
> governments to commit to other designated intensification corridors
> such as Duke-Charles-Ottawa Streets and Hespler Road.
>
> And as riders travel along an intensification corridor, their LRT
> vehicle would use one track -- like the Portland Streetcar known
> around the World for very successful intensification. But unlike it,
> our LRT vehicle would move in both directions made possible by 2-
> track passing at some stops -- with the assistance of Intelligent
> Transportation System technology. (See Case Study: Portland
> Streetcar, http://metro-cincinnati.info/?page_id=982)
>
> And with only one track being necessary -- because of the high-
> capacity Ridership Corridor carrying most of the riders -- an LRT
> intensification corridor could now be extended up King North Street
> past WLU and eventually to Conestoga Mall.
>
> When it comes to cost savings most people don't realize how much
> more it costs to put 2 tracks along a road as compared to 1 track on
> a road or 2 tracks along a rail right-of-way.
>
> And one-track-only along a road gives more flexibility in avoiding
> underground utilities. Also there would be less use of roads and
> more of rail right-of-ways -- at least in the initial stages. Both
> of these possibilities at least mean less use and/or a more time-
> dispersed use of the $100 budgeted to move underground and above
> ground utilities!
>
> Also, just think how much it costs to build a station-tunnel under
> the CN line ($30M+) or a 2-track highway 7&8 underpass or a 2-track
> bridge over the Grand River or a 3-track bridge over the Speed
> River. And there are also 2-track bridges over numerous creeks. With
> track sharing, all of these massive expenditures can be avoided with
> a few much smaller cost exceptions.
>
> But optimal track sharing requires pioneering new relationships with
> the railways.
>
>
>
> Synergistic Collaboration with CP and GEXR
>
> For the cost of the ridership corridor to be sufficiently affordable
> -- in these very tough economic times for both the public and
> private sectors -- various new forms of synergistic collaboration
> with CP/Toyota and GEXR/CN will have to be created. These new
> relationships would likely centre mostly around mutual financial and
> performance advantages.
>
> At present, discussions with CP/Toyota seem to need a stronger
> common interest to advance further. Such a common interest could
> centre around CP's need for an optimal solution to potentially very
> serious problems caused by the extreme track grade between Eagle and
> Fountain Streets. The nature of these problems relates to track
> safety, train delay and even long Toyota plant closures.
>
> Of the three possible solutions considered by CP, the best appears
> to involve the crossing of the City of Cambridge's Riverside Park.
> But to obtain the various necessary approvals, they would likely
> need a public partner such as the Region via its LRT project. Likely
> they would need some funding from the Provincial and Federal
> governments -- and the Region as a junior partner.
>
> The two higher levels of government might justify significant
> funding for a few reasons: 1) to help keep Canada's most innovative
> area -- Waterloo Region -- economically strong by helping avoid the
> possibility of Toyota shifting significant production to Woodstock;
> 2) to indirectly help defray a large amount of the costs of LRT use
> of parts of the rail right-of-way achieved by CP in return at least
> agreeing to limit their use of the spur line from the Courtland
> exchange yard to approx. .5km south from the Grand River bridge to
> the hours of 1:00 AM to 5:00AM.
>
> The Region could invest at least the cost of building a 3-track
> bridge across the Speed River at the current site. They would find
> the existing CP bridge sufficient if the previous IDEAS suggested
> for bridges are used by the Region. If the Region also uses the
> Ridership Corridor IDEA, then they could make arrangements with CP
> to use the new 'Riverside Park crossover'/'Speed River bridge'/etc.
> during the rush hour periods to save time.
>
> And this could be a way that indirect Provincial and Federal funding
> could assist the realization of the RTI project.
>
> GEXR is a part of Rail America and is renting CN track in this
> general area -- and the Region's Elmira spur line. While they are
> somewhat open to collaborating with the Region on time-locked track
> sharing on part of their rented track, specifics need to be worked
> out. If we could present them with a Grand Plan type IDEA that could
> help improve the efficiency and extent of their operations, then
> they would likely be very interested in collaborating to a much
> greater degree.
>
> Such a plan might take the form of GEXR being able to use all of the
> Region's "faster-moving" track at night so as to interconnect GEXR's
> track in Cambridge with that in Kitchener. Perhaps they would then
> be able to exchange rail cars at CP's own Sportsworld Drive rail
> yard.
>
> A possible GO-Transit SW described in the section by the same name
> below could greatly extend even more GEXR's night service on fast
> track.
>
> Such IDEAS would are a possible basis for viable synergistic
> collaborations with the railways -- in effect, very strong mutually
> advantageous public/private partnerships! But there is another
> potential public/private partnership that especially the Federal
> government would appreciate.
>
>
> Structuring the LRT system design to attract Bombardier
>
> The Ridership Corridor IDEA will create an LRT system design where
> an LRT train on the rail right-of-way plays the major role and an
> LRT streetcar less so. Yet the goal of intensification will be
> better and
> less expensively realized.
>
> But now the suggested LRT system design is structured to attract big
> rail players such as Bombardier. It is they who operate the GO-
> Trains. But more relevant, Bombardier is the key player in New
> Jersey Transit's (analogous to GO-Transit) River LINE Perhaps we
> can at least emulate their "Unique Rail" approach as they describe it:
> "The equipment, the operating plan, the public-private partnership
> that built and operates the system and other aspects of the River
> LINE represent new and innovative approaches to rail transit
> service. Combining them all in one package geared to provide the
> most service at the best price in an area that was previously
> transit deficient makes the whole project close to revolutionary.
> The unconventional River LINE offers a number of interesting
> attributes:
>
> *a turnkey design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) approach to
> construction and on-going operation by a consortium of suppliers,
> including Bombardier Transportation which now operates and maintains
> the system;
> ...........................................................................................................................................................;
> *new-build line segments that combine dedicated LRT median running
> and streetcar- like operation in mixed traffic;
> *time-shared use with Conrail freight trains for much of the route;
> and
> *an inventive combination of advanced rail traffic control,
> automatic train stop signaling, and temporal separation that yields
> maximum safety and track availability for passengers and freight
> alike." http://www.masstransitmag.com/print/Mass-Transit/Unique-Rail/1$2192)
>
> This seems to be the type of public/private venture that the Feds
> would like to see. But a new IDEA for a bigger LRT and night
> freight network -- possibly involving GO-Transit -- could increase
> further the attractiveness for Bombardier to become involved in such
> a manner.
>
>
> GO-Transit SW (South West) ?
>
> Guelph wants a passenger rail connection to Cambridge. GO-Transit --
> stated as part of MTO's new highway 24 project -- would like to have
> at least a Brantford to Cambridge rail connection. If the Region's
> LRT system design was able to integrate with the expressed potential
> plans of Guelph and GO-Transit, then the value to the Province of
> the LRT project would be further increased.
>
> Joined with the Region's LRT network, this could take the form of a
> GO-Transit SW (South West) -- or called the Grand River Line --
> based on LRT. To date, GO-Transit -- unlike New Jersey Transit --
> has not incorporated LRT as part of its rail passenger network
> despite their heavy rail passenger vehicles being more expensive to
> operate and purchase.
>
> Or course, GO-Transit cannot take advantage of the benefits of LRT
> on the main lines as safety
> regulations in Canada -- unlike Europe -- prohibit it. But on the
> infrequently used heavy rail spur lines,
> time-locked track sharing is more realistic. The GEXR/CN spur rail
> line from Guelph to Cambridge is infrequently used -- and it
> continues through Cambridge (Hespler) until the future Hespler Road
> rail 2-track underpass.
>
> Instead of a rail line constructed as part of a very controversial
> proposed new highway 24, one of the two -- or a combination --
> existing rail corridors from Cambridge(Galt) to Brantford could be
> used. One is now a trail along the Grand River -- a rail/trail is
> possible. The other -- after following highway 24 for approx. 7 km.
> from the Cambridge's Ainslie Terminal, turns left , eventually
> following parallel to highway 24 about 4 km. inland.
>
> If such a new fast LRT track were constructed, then GEXR's could
> have an opportunity to further expand its potential night freight
> operation to Brantford. This future possibility would add to the
> anticipated advantages to GEXR of synergistically collaborating on
> track sharing with the Region's LRT system.
>
> Such a GO-Transit SW LRT line would connect Brantford primarily with
> the GO-Train in Guelph. A future connection to the GO-Train in
> Hamilton would likely be desirable from GO-Transit's viewpoint..
>
> As the advantages of using the LRT become more universally
> recognized for very cost-efficient inter-city travel -- particularly
> between the smaller cities outside the GTA -- then the Province and
> GO-Transit will start to explore their use on mainline CP & CN rail
> corridors to, for example, interconnect with Woodstock and Stratford.
>
> Here, most likely a separate LRT track would be built on one side of
> the mainline corridor. Much less likely, advances in Intelligent
> Transportation System technology may make safe 24-hour LRT multi-
> modal track sharing possible.
>
> Surviving sustainably in a very complex World at least means that
> collaborative dreams and vision must drive our innovation in our
> interrelated businesses, governments and communities. Today we must
> all be so driven -- or our species will die off!
>
>
>
> Persuading governments by a Grand Vision for our area's future
>
> If the Region of Waterloo hopes to get funding from the Governments
> of Ontario and Canada despite these very tough economic times and
> the competition from other major centres like Toronto, then -- as
> both these governments might expect from the most innovative area in
> Canada -- we will have to expand the project to become part of a
> more complex future-thinking venture. And it must be extraordinarily
> innovative!
>
> This Grand Vision could include the vision of University of Waterloo
> President David Johnston -- this area as the Knowledge Capital of
> Canada by 2010. He set 10 goals to achieve this. And influenced by
> Richard Florida's writing's on the creative class, ”Johnston said
> ''this area welcomes new people and new IDEAS".
>
> Johnston implies that a Knowledge Capital is based largely on new
> creative IDEAS. "And as we move beyond 2010", he says, "each and
> every one of (us has) to do (our) part to see our performance
> improve and our goals continue to be achieved".
>
> Very important for the further success of the Knowledge Capital
> venture -- or any other large public project -- is this Region's
> "barn raising" tradition wherein he says "we work collaboratively to
> (potentially) accomplish what any one individual cannot." Such
> collaboration would be be synergistic if successful.
>
> One of David's 10 goals is Smart Infrastructure -- which includes
> Smart Transit. The "Waterloo benchmark" IDEAS suggested to help
> enhance the Region's LRT system design towards greater cost-
> effectiveness would help create a World-class Sustainable Innovation
> that is Smart Transit.
>
> Some hi-tech community leaders want to amalgamate the cities of
> Waterloo and Kitchener. Their prime motivation is so that the new
> city -- likely Waterloo because the name has greater value in the
> World -- can have a "bigger World splash".
>
> Certainly being big enough to be noticed on the World stage is very
> important for university and business success. But to follow the
> example of the University of Waterloo who has extended its campus to
> Stratford -- and WLU to Brantford -- "why not" extend the Region of
> Waterloo to a more inclusive Greater Waterloo District (like
> Toronto's GTA and Vancouver's GVRD)?
>
> Our Greater Waterloo District could include Cambridge, Guelph,
> Stratford, Woodstock, Brantford and
> (where applicable) their associated Counties. And especially if this
> also becomes our broader Knowledge
> Capitla of Canada focus, then -- as we rapidly develop -- what a
> World splash we will create!
>
> More, we will also have an expanding Grand River Line (or GO-Transit
> SW) to sustainably and
> efficiently connect us. And Jim Balsillie would have a perfect area
> for his new NHL team, the Waterloo
> Innovators.
>
> The resulting smart LRT infrastructure would be an essential
> support as we create a wonderful Knowledge and Innovation exemplar
> to the World -- where collaboration and sustainability are
> championed -- of which all Canadians can be proud! Now the
> Provincial and Federal governments would see our enhanced LRT system
> design proposal as part of a Grand Plan in harmony with our highest
> innovative aspirations.
>
> Then our higher level politicians can better justify to the people
> of Ontario and Canada why this area -- potentially a Greater
> Waterloo District -- would merit scarce government financial
> resources for our LRT project.
>
>
>
>
> Robert Milligan is a member of Transport Action Ontario (formerly
> Transport 2000). He has a BSc in math-physics. a Graduate Diploma in
> Education and has completed many other courses including ones in
> industrial engineering, operations research and environmental
> health. He was a high school teacher, business systems analyst and
> environmental health analyst. Much of his time in retirement is now
> given freely to public projects, especially those with significant
> environmental and health features.
>
>
>
>
> The River LINE operates on the same rails as Conrail via a temporal
> separation. While River LINE vehicles are on the tracks, Conrail is
> not allowed on and vice versa.
> (See http://www.masstransitmag.com/print/Mass-Transit/Unique-Rail/1$2192)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Newer GTW version
> of above Stadler LRT
>
>
>
> New construction along the route of the Portland Streetcar (Photo:
> Brad Thomas / CincyStreetcar Blog)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (Case Study: Portland Streetcar, http://metro-cincinnati.info/?page_id=982)
>
>
>
> Note: Pictures can be better arranged with better software.
>
>
>
> APPENDIX
>
> 1. SUGGESTED RIDERSHIP CORRIDOR
> The "train" LRT rail right-of-way corridor could extend from a new
> park-and-go terminal at Northfield Dr. to the existing Ainslie St.
> Terminal. It would be composed of the following sections: Waterloo
> spur line -- Caroline Street -- Iron Horse Trail (rail/trail) --
> north side of main CN line (via new 45 degree underpass) -- King/
> Joseph multi-modal HUB -- CN/CP spur line south to other side
> (~500m) of Grand R. -- bypass of CP/Toyota switching yard to
> Fountain St. -- parallel to CP track to Dolph St. AND CP line
> crossing Riverside Park and Speed R (new) to Dolph St. (rush hours
> only) -- CN line to Hespler Rd. -- existing Grand Trunk corridor
> (via CP line underpass) -- Mill Creek Trail (rail/trail) --
> Wellington St. The only extraordinary costs would for the 45 degree
> CN underpass and for a minority share of the costs of the Riverside
> Park (berm) and Speed River (bridge) crossing.
>
>
> 2. Why Cambridge & a Berm/Bridge Crossing of Riverside Pk., Speed
> R., Eagle St., ... ?
>
> If an LRT is going to be built in the Region, certainly it is unfair
> to not have Cambridge
> connected from the beginning with all its attendant benefits for
> Cambridge. But even the K-W part of the LRT will suffer. That is, by
> not including Cambridge fewer people will use the K-W section
> because the BRT "feeder" in Cambridge will by its nature (buses have
> a stigma, etc.) attract fewer people.
>
> Also, the current LRT system design was primarily intended to
> intensify (according to Ken & Carl) with ridership a poor second. I
> am certainly not against intensification when roads are ready and
> once we are more certain that it can work by an initial "proving"
> intensification corridor (K-W's King West/ South)
>
> My enhanced design proposal puts a much greater emphasis on
> ridership. This is especially important because if ridership is very
> low in relation to cost, then the LRT will be given a failure stigma
> and be less persuasive with intensifying developers.
>
> But as we prosper, traffic problems will worsen. The LRT can help
> greatly IF it is designed to attract the middle class out of their
> cars (now it is mostly students and the working poor). Primarily
> that means a much shorter travel time than the current road-dominant
> design permits. And the only way to achieve much lower travel times
> is to have a fast "ridership" corridor along the existing rail right-
> of-way -- with interconnected intensification corridors as needed.
>
> However, there is a major problem with using the rail right-of-way
> -- that of obtaining good cooperation from the railways, especially
> CP. You know well the difficulties the Region had with CP over the
> Hespler Rd. overpass. But now CP has a problem themselves -- a
> Toyota affecting problem of potentially great magnitude, But it is
> also a potential problem for Cambridge and the Region.
>
> A CP employee told me that the Eagle to Fountain grade is among the
> worst in their rail net work, especially since curvature is
> equivalent to grade. Yes they do have a problem going up the grade
> which I have known for some time -- occasionally they can't make it
> to the top of the grade! But I didn't know that they had a much
> worse type of problem going down -- a very serious safety problem!
> Yes their brakes are adequate for normal grades but this grade is
> not normal. As a result, they often find themselves going too fast
> as they cross the curvilinear Speed River bridge, a bridge of
> questionable adequacy!
>
> Just imagine what might happen to current production &/or future
> expansion at the Toyota plant if a rail tragedy occurred because the
> the bridge collapsed -- especially when the new Woodstock facility
> is likely capable of significant expansion!
>
> And this potential problem must be further underlined by the
> potential loss on life including the engineeer and many on the
> adjacent road bridge as the rail cars coming down the grade pile-up!
>
> But more, an increasing likely large storm could cause a raging
> Speed River -- as it curves around the river bend going in the
> direction of that section of rail line (in the floodplain adjacent
> to the river) between the bridge and the Eagle St. crossing -- to
> wipe out that section of track!
>
> With all these actual and potential problems, it is no wonder that
> CP wants a solution. And their preferred solution is a crossing of
> Riverside Park, the Speed River, Eagle St., Westminster St., Laurel
> St., ... .
>
> But, to make this crossing they would need the cooperation/approval
> of Cambridge, the Region, GRCA, etc. Obviously -- because of Toyota
> at least -- it is Cambridge's advantage to cooperate. However,
> government (F & P +) money would be needed. Also existing laws may
> require direct government participation in the project to help deal
> with existing laws, regulations, policies, etc. (a public/private
> partnership?).
>
> For example, the Region could use the money it would otherwise spend
> on a 3-track bridge across the Speed R. and put that towards its
> junior partnership share in the "Park Crossing & Bridge" P/P joint
> venture. But in return the Region could require from CP at least: 1)
> exclusive use of the CP spur line (from Courtland Ave, to approx.
> 200m. from the Grand River Bridge on the Cambridge side) between the
> hours of 5:00 AM and 1:00 AM: 2) exclusive use of the "Park Crossing
> & Bridge" during rush-hour periods.
>
> This is called synergistic collaboration where all parties involved
> (Cambridge, Region, CP, Toyota, Prov,, Feds, -- even GEXR) directly
> and indirectly benefit in ways not otherwise possible.
>
> And this is but one IDEA that is part of an enhanced LRT system
> design for a much more successful LRT that includes Cambridge from
> the get-go -- and so that the K-W section has greater ridership and
> thereby greater intensification!
>
>
> 3. Hamilton & Wireless systems using battery or fuel cells
>
> So much money could be saved on the need for 3 copper wire systems
> (catenary + 2 stray current wires) if we were more forwardly
> innovative in our thinking as they are in Hamilton, viz.
>
> "Hamilton itself is planning for two LRT lines, which should be
> among the first generation to be built. These lines should be built
> in Hamilton using the most competitive and advanced technology
> available (e.g. wireless systems using battery or fuel cells)."
> http://hamiltonlightrail.com/article/coc_resolution_light_rail_transit_made_in_hamilton/
>
>
> They did it with Storage battery cars way back in " ...
>
> the 1920's and 1930's (when) three Canadian mainline railways,
> Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and
> Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway operated storage battery
> cars on several lines. In most of these cases service never
> approached interurban levels, nor were they considered separate from
> the railways' steam-hauled services. The largest user, the CNR, had
> retired all its storage battery cars by 1942. (Photo: CN Images of
> Canada: Canada Science and Technology Museum)"
> Locally, such a passenger rail vehicle was run by the CPR from Galt
> to Hamilton, Ontario -- a trip of 55km/34.4mi.
> http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wyatt/alltime/other-modes.html
>
> That such an IDEA is feasible NOW for our LRT is suggested by the
> proven Proterra nano-battery driven electric bus (http://green.autoblog.com/2009/05/06/proterra-electric-bus-gets-over-20-mpge-in-tests/
> ):
>
> "The Pennsylvania Transportation Institute at Penn State just had
> the chance to put the Proterra electric bus through some fuel
> economy tests in Altoona, PA and it was there that the Altairnano-
> powered people mover generated some head-turning miles per gallon
> equivalent (MPGe) numbers. After going through three different duty
> cycles, the worst result returned was 17.55 MPGe, while the best was
> 29.23 MPGe, earned during the "commuter" phase which featured just
> one stop and speeds of up to 40 mph. The "central business district"
> phase which included 7 stops per mile and speeds of up to 20 mph
> gave an impressive result of 21.35 MPGe. The performance is even
> more amazing when you consider that the tests were performed at a
> gross vehicle weight of 36,680 lbs which simulated a full complement
> of 38 seated passengers, another 34 standing and, of course, a driver.
>
> How does that compare with buses in service today? According to
> Proterra president Jeff Granato, "The test validated that Proterra's
> 35-foot transit bus achieves up to 400 percent better performance
> than today's conventional diesel or competitor's hybrid transit
> buses." The results, combined with the ability to conveniently fast-
> charge the battery, make for a bus that's efficient, effective and,
> at the street level at least, emissions free. Hit the jump for a
> video of some battery bus riding action and a press release with
> more details."
>
>
>
> 4. Designing New Light Rail: Taking Engineering Beyond Vanilla
>
> "As light rail transit (LRT) systems mature and expand, outlying
> passengers are faced with
> increasingly longer trip times to reach the urban core. Providing
> service to these customers
> by conventional means can be disproportionately expensive for the
> transit carrier in terms of
> operating and capital expense. Innovative operational practices to
> expedite train movements,
> however, are often confounded by current LRT design and deployment
> methods. This is partly
> attributable to design methods that follow a “stovepipe” approach to
> individual engineering
> disciplines and components, rather than directing focus on
> optimizing railway functionality and
> flexibility as a comprehensive entity. It is also attributable, in
> part, to a failure to address the
> ultimate potential of a railway at the definition/developmental
> stage and to subsequently
> articulate and document the operational requirements that are
> necessary to support the stated
> mission.
> This paper provides a survey of the critical engineering “systems”
> that comprise a light
> electrified passenger railway, and suggests those that are most
> significant in affecting innovative
> operational practices. It illustrates the model relationship between
> operations and systems design
> by a case study based on the first implementation of express service
> on a modern LRT system."
> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec058/11_01_Fazio.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100607/c5144362/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1166486943621_unique3.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 36051 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100607/c5144362/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Arriva_EMU_Niederlande_jpg_68x49_crop_q95.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2751 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100607/c5144362/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: streetcar_pdx_construction-300x210.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 30233 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100607/c5144362/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CN005535-t.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100607/c5144362/attachment-0003.jpg>
More information about the All
mailing list