[All] Fwd: LRT As Community "Saviour"

[Robert Milligan]

FYI
R

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robert Milligan <mill at continuum.org>
> Date: June 9, 2010 9:44:22 PM GMT-04:00
> To: paul zacharias <pbz100 at hotmail.com>
> Subject: LRT As Community "Saviour"
>
> Rev. Paul,
>
> Thank you for your much appreciated response. As I said, yours is  
> the most detailed and thoughtful that I have received on all of the  
> versions of my LRT "reports" over the 2+ year period that I have  
> been evolving them. One from Chair Ken Seiling might be the exception.
>
> I realize that likely most people are against an LRT -- especially  
> as currently designed with its very high cost and perceived  
> potential white elephant status.
>
> Besides not designing the proposed LRT system to be sufficiently  
> cost-effective, the Region has not included Cambridge initially (if  
> ever) -- to the Region's great disadvantage in so many ways -- in  
> this major project so important to the viable future of our local  
> environment and businesses.
>
> I suspect that most of the people against the LRT and in favour of  
> buses do not intend to ride  those buses themselves -- they see  
> their support for buses (with their stigma) mostly as social charity  
> so that students and the working poor can get around!
>
> On the other hand, these same people enjoy the status, freedom and  
> pleasure of driving their car. Yet, as our urban spaces accelerate  
> in their growth, traffic jamming on city roads is likewise  
> accelerating.
>
> If traffic jams continue to worsen, this will decrease our quality  
> of Life and increasingly make this a much less desirable community  
> for businesses, professionals, academics, etc. This is the dimension  
> of cost that you and your "no LRT" friends are conveniently  
> overlooking!!
>
> Therefore, to get you and your affluent friends on-board the LRT  
> project, the LRT goal of high middle class Ridership most be given  
> just as much weight -- or more -- than the interrelated goal of high  
> urban core building Intensification which combats countryside-  
> destroying urban sprawl.
>
> (Do us all a favour and help convince Ken Seiling & Mayor Carl Zehr  
> of this as they seem stuck in a rigid belief in Intensification at  
> all costs -- apparently forsaking all other goals. Do they  
> unconsciously seek LRT failure?)
>
> So, if the LRT system itself is designed to move fast enough using  
> the existing rail corridor and inter-connected intensification road  
> corridors, then -- with just-in-time bus connections -- sufficient  
> people will be attracted out of their cars to help free our roads of  
> traffic jams.
>
> You and the majority of your friends might consider the LRT as an  
> investment so road congestion doesn't destroy our leading-edge way  
> of life. But again, the LRT system must designed to minimize transit  
> time so as to do that successfully. It is not so designed now!
>
> Until our cars and buses can fly -- my God, wouldn't that be hell on  
> Earth --  we will very much need an appropriately-enhanced LRT  
> system design that includes Cambridge. And soon. It could even be  
> considered a valuable make-work project if that second dip recession  
> manifests as you prophecize.
>
> Enjoy your trip and safe return.
>
> Best wishes,
> Robert
>
> PS: 1. With synergistic collaboration with the railways and the many  
> other new IDEAS, costs will drop dramatically and generally we will  
> accomplish more with less money & other resources;
>         2. LRT -- especially when on a rail right-of-way corridor --  
> fare extremely well with traffic congestion ("gates" would come  
> down) and extreme snow storms (when buses are stuck);
>         3. As I was about to send this, an engineer friend sent  
> this, "What with all of the parking garages/lots built, currently  
> under construction and proposed especially in and around downtown  
> Kitchener, I wonder if Kitchener council are permanently stuck in  
> the past." (Although, even with a very successful LRT, some people  
> will still need to bring their downtown. And we must accommodate  
> them  as their presence will also help intensify our urban cores.)
>         4. I would be more than willing to meet with a group of  
> people that you know who might  wish to discuss the LRT. I would  
> prefer to not include members of "Taxpayers for Sensible(?) Transit"  
> as they -- incubated by right-wing UofW philosopher Jan Narveson and  
> supported by flip-flopping Prof. John Shortreed (a bus transit  
> "expert" who has apparently never heard of the IDEA of just-in-time  
> bus connections with an LRT) -- suffer too much from that most  
> serious brain-wasting disease, hardening of the ideological  
> categories so that they get angry too easily when challenged!
>
>
>
>
> On 9-Jun-10, at 5:29 PM, paul zacharias wrote:
>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing the LRT forward  with me. I am very much  
>> impressed with the incredible amount of thought and research you  
>> have given to this project. The amount  of detailed info is  really  
>> quite astounding. This study  must take up a  great deal of your  
>> time and interest.  However, it seems  that we  are coming from   
>> two different points of  view.  I have  some major problems re: the  
>> proposed LRT proposal, for the following reasons.
>>
>> I think the estimated $1B+ cost figure is  simply too steep at this  
>> time. I  firmly  believe we are in for a double dip recession and  
>> that the second dip will be more severe than the first one...this  
>> largely due to financial factors beyond our control in Europe and   
>> USA. If this comes to pass, the money will simply not be forthcoming.
>>
>> We read that Portland, Ore. is a comparable situation with the  
>> GKWA. I lived in Portland for 5 years, 1958-63, and am aware that  
>> the layout of the city is quite different from Waterloo Region. We  
>> need to compare apples with apples. Already 50 years ago Portland  
>> was  recognized as a pioneer "Green" city. The majority of peope  
>> there, then and now, are very open to environmental issues and all  
>> things Green.  I do not sense the same attitude in the GKWA.  The  
>> general mindset of the two populations is so different.
>>
>> Over the past year I've spoken with several dozen local people  
>> about the proposed LRT plan,and I'd say that by a 3 to 1 margin  
>> they are opposed to the  project...this for all sorts of  reasons.  
>> I realize this is a small and very informal  personal  survey, but  
>> I believe it carries some  weight. I am convinced we should have a  
>> plebisite in this  region to obtain a fair reading of the local  
>> population re: the LRT idea. My sense is that the idea would be  
>> defeated.
>>
>> Assuming that the  tracks  would be laid on King St., or nearby  
>> streets, there would   be  dozens of intersecting streets that  
>> would need to have safety  barrier systems installed, and I would  
>> envision some massive  traffic problems as  trains come along every  
>> 10-12 minutes.  Also,how well  does this type of transportation  
>> system work when serious ice and snow  storms hit the region?
>>
>> I like to  trust my feelings, and this whole massive project just   
>> doesn't feel right to me. The  city is building about  $65M worth  
>> of car parking lots in the downtown area...and yet people are  
>> supposed to leave their cars at home and use the LRT. It doesn't  
>> compute!  I don't think we have the potential  ridership to justify  
>> the LRT.
>>
>> For these reasons I  would much prefer  a more efficient,  
>> improved,  more flexible bus system for the GKWA. We're told this  
>> would cost  around $450M. This makes a lot more  sense to me.  Take  
>> care, Paul
>>
>> Enter for a chance to get your town photo on Bing.ca! Submit a  
>> Photo Now!
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100609/a7cdee1d/attachment.html>