[All] FW: Transit Survey Response

[Susan Koswan]

FYI,

Following up to Ken Seiling's response to the anti-LRT survey, is their
response. 

Susan K

 

To Ken Seiling:

Thank you for your detailed response. We apologize for the delay in
responding (one of our members was out of town).

Your reply seems to assume that we are against improved public transit.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A large part of our opposition to
LRT is because we think it is a costly white elephant that will waste
transit resources and threaten the overall transit system in the Region for
decades to come.

We are disappointed to hear that you feel our questions are misleading or
incorrect. We have spent a great deal of time over the last two years trying
to get the facts straight about LRT. Despite attending the public forums,
carefully reading the LRT web site and contacting regional transportation
staff directly, it has not been easy to get the facts about this proposal.
However, we feel confident that our questions are fair. 

Furthermore, what we are saying has been widely expressed in public,
including in articles and letters to the editor in local newspapers. If, for
example, you are really certain that the LRT will not disrupt King Street
traffic, left turns, parades or the Busker Festival, then we urge you to
make a commitment to that effect in writing, in public, on the LRT site.
Until then, our research has shown that there will be major disruptions.

As to your other points, we have added some replies, inline, in your email.

Sincerely,
T4ST members


 

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Ken Seiling <watgang at golden.net> wrote:

I have attached my response to your questionnaire and have taken the liberty
of copying other candidates.

 

 

 

To: Taxpayers for Sensible Transit

 

From: Ken Seiling

 

Re: Your Survey

 

During elections, I receive many surveys. For the most part, I find them to
be fair and generally seeking opinions on certain issues. I am aware of your
opposition to the rapid transit project but I am somewhat taken aback that
you would frame  survey questions with misleading or incorrect information
and then ask for a response based on them.  

 

1.	You suggest that the Region lacks a significant  downtown business
district or commuter employment hub. In fact, the federally- sponsored
feasibility study and the subsequent environmental assessment both
identified that, with the linear pattern of the three cities and employment
and population concentrations, we already have sufficient ridership  in the
northern cities to justify a system that will only grow as intensification
takes place. In fact we are better positioned than others such as Calgary
when they began their project. The system will run passengers both ways
rather than one way only. You may wish to reread the studies, the
environmental assessment,  and the reviews by the  panel of experts who peer
reviewed the work.

>>T4ST: Please see  <http://news.therecord.com/article/654719>
http://news.therecord.com/article/654719, "Numbers don't add up for light
rail transit" by John Shortreed, published in the Waterloo Regional Record
on January 12, 2010. 

 

2.	Your costing of $819 million has been inflated by adding costs that
would not be necessary until the system grew in later years. The project
recommended by Regional Council is $790 million. No rapid transit system of
which I am aware has been built in one fell swoop. All are staged .
Although not envisioned in the feasibility study or contemplated in the
terms of reference for the first phase environmental assessment, Council
went one step further to recommend added funds to provide an Adapted Bus
Rapid System in Cambridge in order to advance the ridership and development
necessary to justify the build out of the LRT in the second phase. 

>> T4ST: The figure of $819M is from the Region's business case to the
Provincial and Federal governments (page 40, labeled Grand Total Capital
Expenditure). This figure is now nearly a year old and costs will have
risen, so we consider it conservative. 

 

It is strange that you do not speak of the impacts or costs that must be
faced by not proceeding. It is estimated that up to 500 lane kilometres of
road will have to be built to deal with the growth expected in the next 20
years. I understand that by building the LRT and creating a better modal
shift it is estimated to reduce that by more than 40%.  We would be able to
reduce the road building requirement by approximately  213 lane kilometers.
Depending on the complexity of the work, a lane kilometer of urban road can
cost between $700,000 to $1,200,000. At the low end, that would save more
than $149 million - at the high end up to $256 million, much of which would
be raised on property taxes. Not only would the financial impacts be severe
and the traffic issues horrendous,  there would the impact of destroying
neighbourhoods to try to widen roads where possible.

>> T4ST: We are agreed that transit needs to be improved. We do not believe
that LRT will improve transit.

 

One need only look at the GTA where they have spent the last 25 years trying
to build roads rather than rapid transit. The traffic problems there would
soon be present here and people who may not use transit would find their use
of their  cars much more difficult. We are already seeing the beginnings of
peak time build ups on many roads.

 

Another reason to look at the GTA is to see the astronomical costs being
faced by the area in trying to retrofit it after the fact. In reality, they
are now precluded from doing it right and are faced with the sprawl which
grew up without good transit in place.

 

The building of the Expressway in Kitchener would never happen if opponents
and naysayers had been successful in blocking it. Kitchener and Waterloo
took a bold, brave, and future looking stand when they agreed to fund it.
London did not and rues the choice to this day. 

 

>>T4ST: The Conestoga Expressway cannot be used to justify LRT. Arguing that
it does is tantamount to claiming that every large transportation idea
should be implemented, regardless of details. 

 

 

 

3.	You are suggesting that there will be a 9% increase in property
taxes. Since you do not know the final plan or the financing proposals, I am
interested how you can give a number. Regional  Council has neither
discussed or approved a final design or costing, nor has it considered
financing options. Your predictions are somewhat premature. It is important
to note that you have not costed the impacts of the road building
requirements mentioned above on property taxes.

>>T4ST: The 9% figure comes from Jeff Outhit's reporting of the cost of
financing the Region's share of the current plan. The number is based on
regional reports. The estimate is based on every $50 million in regional
capital outlay requiring a 1.1 percent increase in regional taxes, with
operating costs adding another 3.4 percent increase in taxes. (1.1 x 5) +
3.4 = 8.9% increase. Sean Strickland also reports this figure on his
campaign web site.

 

4.	You suggest that there will be road disruptions and that the
Oktoberfest parade will be affected. The LRT will be a street-level rail
technology, generally on either existing roads or rail corridors. Left
turns, U turns and driveway access will all be accommodated in the design.
Modern electrical wires used to power new LRT systems are quite unobtrusive
and fit into the streetscape. Two way traffic will remain on roads which
have LRT. The suggestion that the Oktoberfest Parade will have to move is a
complete red herring and inaccurate. Parades will still be able to travel
along King Street. 

>>T4ST: Your statements here contradict what we have been told by regional
transportation staff. In addition, Larry Blundell confirmed personally in a
meeting with one of us last year that there are concerns by the Oktoberfest
committee that the parade would be disrupted and he approved the circulation
of a flyer at the 2009 parade to raise the issue with the public. 

 

 

5.	You ask people to be for or against an LRT system for the Region.
Perhaps it would be more to the point if you asked people if they were for
or against urban sprawl, gridlocked traffic, damaged neighbourhoods, huge
property tax increases for road building, and a whole host of problems that
this Region will experience if it fails to move the community forward rather
than freeze it in a model that has proved to be such a disaster for the GTA
and which is being abandoned in cities across North America.

>>T4ST: Again, you misrepresent us. We are not against transit. We are
against this one particular proposal. 

 

 

Waterloo Region has been successful because it has always kept its eye on
the future. The Rapid Transit project is something that is critical to the
future of this Region just as was the building of the Expressway or the
creation of the University of Waterloo by people who looked ahead. For those
of us in my generation and older, we need to remind ourselves that we have
children and grandchildren who deserve to have a healthy, successful, and
thriving community.  

 

>>T4ST: We feel equally strongly that the future of our community is at risk
because of LRT. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20101004/5cf9c658/attachment.html>