[All] "Rail transit isn't yet off the rails"
Robert Milligan
mill at continuum.org
Mon Sep 6 02:56:02 EDT 2010
Jeff,
Thanks for writing a column that helps give more hope to those of us
who can see the need for a more viable and fair LRT system design in
light of negative and inadequately researched LRT comments by some
Regional Councillors -- and other candidates -- perhaps fearful of
angry tax increase averse voters.
Although, maybe these new naysayers sense intuitively not only that
the LRT cost would be too high, but that middle class ridership as a
goal got too little emphasis, that it wouldn't even intensify well.
and that is was grossly unfair to exclude Cambridge (again)!
And your column also helps to balance the unnecessarily negatively
worded and hence slightly manipulative CTV "survey" which was as Kevin
Thomason says is "more about increasing taxes than (the hoped for
advantages of light rail) public transit".
For the record, CKCO specifically said, "Ottawa is kicking in $265
million. The province says it's good for $300 million. But the final
tab for an LRT in Waterloo Region could be millions more. Question:
Would you be willing to pay for the LRT?"
Especially since Waterloo Region is a uniquely prosperous and blessed
area, I think that we have all been unreasonable in expecting
taxpayers generally in Ontario and Canada to pay for 100% for our LRT
system. (Are we now trying to treat the Province & Canada unfairly?)
But don't get me wrong, I would like to minimize tax increases also
especially in tough economic times -- but I insist on paying my fair
share.
Also I am very disappointed that few have attempted a broad and deep
criticism of the current LRT system design. Fewer still have attempted
to suggest viable IDEAS for improving the LRT system design. Unlike
Galileo's great example, have we become too trusting of and dependent
on authorities? Too much is at stake to say that you are just too busy
with other things.
Perhaps we need to re-think our personal approach to the LRT.
Let me make a suggestion. We need to approach our LRT challenge
differently by drawing on our gutsy Pioneering Innovative Spirit --
somewhat like the University of Waterloo recently expressed best
through David Johnston and RIM through Lazaridis & Balsillie. Both
organizations welcome innovative challenges so as to create a great
"product" at an acceptable cost.
Although I'm obviously not a genius like Galileo, I am a very tough
technological and scientific critic, and I'm very creatively
innovative. And by my example -- in my many very detailed evolving
exploratory comments over more than 3 years -- I have tried to give
some indication of how we could better meet the great innovative
challenge presented by our LRT. .
As a result Jeff, I feel somewhat prepared to answer your (rhetorical)
question, "How much trimming can the project take before the trains
are rendered pointless?" as if it were not just rhetorical.
Unfortunately your question does not take into consideration the
potential for a more complex type of solution that can trim and yet
advance better towards the most important goal, middle class
ridership optimization -- while intensifying more slowly in line with
the lesser amount of senior government funding.
This ridership goal is the most import goal because it would serve all
citizens/taxpayers by reversing the increasing "rush hour" traffic
congestion. Also many middle class riders using the LRT on an
Intensification Corridor -- c.f. just students, the working poor and
idealists -- would help make the LRT more valuable to developers. (It
is the middle class who will buy, work and live in their new
intensifying buildings.)
This slight goal priority shift is the primary basis of my trimming
suggestions, along of course with aim of drastically reducing costs
per km. But first I will take an unexpected step.
To enable this "new type" of trimming, I propose spending $$$ here &
trimming $$$$ below:
1) Extending the rail right-of-way (very, very inexpensive to lay
track compared to roads) from a Northfield terminal to the Ainslie
Terminal (this will increase speed, capacity, fairness, passenger
demand and make slower staging possible);
2) Build a 45 degree angled short 2-track underpass through the main
CN line track-berm by the new Iron Horse rail/trail (essential part of
rail right-of-way);
3) Shift the Kitchener HUB to between King & Joseph Streets using free
(CN) and inexpensive land (with bus, taxi, personal vehicle,
pedestrian access from both sides of the track):
4) Build a pedestrian crossing for the HUB over the CN tracks and (if
deemed necessary) a 1-track station/bridge over the CN mainline that
would link Wellington W. to the CN spur line & Charles St. (otherwise
angle across CN tracks at grade and run south of & parallel to spur
line as enter HUB area, etc.
5) Use railway proven Intelligent Transportation System technology
(computer software, GPS, ...) to facilitate the use of passing tracks,
single track bridges, single track underpass, just-in-time bus
connections.
Now for the trimming. I propose saving $$$$ by the following changes:
1) Slow the rate of staging of the very, very costly Intensification
Corridors (IC) -- W to K in first stage as an exemplar (its success
will encourage $$ from Province & developers for more IC's);
2) Decrease the # of tracks on the King IC (and future IC's) from 2 to
1 -- with passing at GRH stop -- making many infrastructure
alterations unnecessary (hydro poles, sidewalks, sewer pipes, etc.);
3) Decrease the # of tracks on the rail right-of-way from 3 to 2 with
LRT 2-track use except reversion to 1-track (with passing track at
stations & between some stations) when CP or GEXR freight train comes
through:
4) Use additional sharing of other railway infrastructure so that
very expensive bridges (3- track @ Silver Lake/Laurel Creek, 2-track @
Schneider Creek, 2-track @ Grand River, 3-track @ Speed River [use
road bridge]), underpasses (3-tracks @ Conestoga Expressway, 2-tracks
@ Water St. [significant modifications];
5) Do not electrify the system by using the proven Ultra-Battery or
hydrogen combustion engine (Ford/BMW) saving as much as $62 million in
electrification costs;
6) Re-sell the acquired but now more valuable (because of Breithaupt
St. projects) King/Duke HUB lands either to UofW for a mini Research &
Technology Park or a developer
(requiring de-browning in either case);
7) Re-sell any properties bought along Charles as space for 1-track
only would be required for the the (stage 2?) IC from the HUB along
Charles, then Ottawa to the rail right-of-way (Ridership Corridor [RC]);
8) Etc.
In many previous emails, I have detailed how and why the current LRT
system design would likely be insufficiently successful . Now I have
just showed ways that the LRT could be design-enhanced using a little
creative intelligence to find, think of, and integrate proven rail
transportation IDEAS.
Jeff, hopefully this work will help inspire others to also
constructively criticize and bring new IDEAS to help enhance the LRT
system design. Such joint efforts could help create a new LRT system
that would better sustain and advance our great Region with but a
slight increase in taxes.
Note: Other parties who may be interested are receiving bcc's.
Best wishes,
Robert
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, journalism 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 action-research for public projects,
especially those with significant environmental and health features.
He has now invested over 4000 hours (in internet research, fieldwork,
and discussions with: citizens, politicians, staff. academics,
consultants & manufacturers in both Canada & US , ...) and much
critical and creative thinking on this very complex LRT project.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Robert Milligan <mill at continuum.org>
> Date: September 5, 2010 2:42:26 AM GMT-04:00
> To: Jan Liggett <jkliggett at rogers.com>, Ginny Quinn
> <ginny at kw.igs.net>, Kevin Thomason <kevinthomason at mac.com>, "Randy
> B. McLean" <randybmclean at rogers.com>
> Cc: * GREN <all at gren.ca>
> Subject: Re: [All] Fw: Rapid Transit Funding Update
>
> Greetings Jan, Ginny, Kevin and Randy,
>
> Well it seems that the summer LRT doldrums are over perhaps
> initiated by the hurricane generated by Harper's $250M(-?) LRT
> shortfall and the prospect of Regional taxpayers having to pay
> $235(+?). And the proximity of the Municipal election and its
> anticipated pro/con LRT battles is a likely additional causative
> factor.
>
> As for my own research-based position, for many months I have only
> supported an enhanced (I don't like very costly white elephants
> either) LRT system design (evolving conception) that includes:
> 1) The goal of middle class LRT ridership optimization to be primary
> so that the accelerating traffic jams on many Regional roads can be
> reversed. And the best way to achieve this goal is use the existing
> rail right-of-way (Ridership Corridor) between terminals at Ainslie
> and Northfield that will have sufficient MC attracting power via its
> speed, capacity, length and just-in-time express bus connections
> (that reach into our Tri-City suburbs and beyond to our township
> urban centres);
> 2) The secondary goal of urban core (key) road intensification
> (Intensification Corridors) -- so as to minimize urban sprawl --
> needs to be staged more slowly because: a) it costs so much more per
> km. than using the rail right-of-way; and b) the Province's (short)
> funding was primarily intended for (Places to Grow Policy based)
> intensification (they will perhaps be encouraged to pay more once
> they see all the tax revenues produced by our exemplary W to K
> Intensification Corridor);
> 3) A radical reduction in cost as a result of:
> i) the 1 & 2 goal shift resulting in the (new) first stage use
> of much more rail right-of-way and much less (disruptive) road;
> ii) one track only along the King Intensification Corridor (with
> passing at the hospital station) will negate the need for most
> relocating of sidewalks & (below & above ground) utilities, and for
> all building modifications. Further, private businesses will be less
> disrupted during construction;
> iii) sharing with CP & GEXR their infrequently used tracks,
> bridges, underpass, ... instead of redundantly building our own
> infrastructure (thus enabling us to require only 1 track of our own
> instead of two, avoid new 2-track and 3-track bridges, a 2 track
> underpass, etc.);
> iv) getting free land from MTO near Sportsworld Dr. for a
> maintenance yard;
> v) avoiding a very complex and problematic 2-track tunnel/station
> under the CN tracks on King St.;
> vi) shifting the Kitchener HUB to inexpensive and/or free
> (railway) land between King & Joseph Streets and selling the
> properties bought between King and Duke Streets;
> vii) the use of the Ultra battery or hydrogen combustion engines
> (we could produce in a renewable manner ourselves the necessary
> electricity and hydrogen) would avoid a complex (catenary)
> electrification system;
> viii) Etc.
>
> I am trying to get more specific cost details from Regional staff.
> However, I tentatively sense (I suffer from very informed intuition)
> that Jeff Outhit's implied suggestion (Saturday) that we might be
> able to accept a $675 project budget (we pay $150) -- especially
> with the above possible LRT enhancements -- is a budget amount that
> could likely do the job. And it could be within budget, especially
> if we are willing to learn from the many "within budget and on time"
> LRT success situations -- I especially like this website where
> their views are based on US GAO facts:
>
> Most Light Rail Projects Within Budget, on Time
> http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_lrt009.htm
> A favorite canard of light rail opponents is the accusation that all
> (or most) light rail transit (LRT) projects experience severe cost
> overruns; thus, projected costs of new projects are attacked for
> supposedly being severely "underestimated". Wendell Cox, Thomas
> Rubin, and other rail opponents claim, for example, that "80%" or
> more of light rail projects experience serious cost overruns. The
> result is a potent scare tactic to alarm the public and turn voters
> away from light rail.
>
> in reality, the budget record of light rail projects has largely
> been admirable, particularly when compared with alternative large
> public-works undertakings such as highway projects. According to a
> US General Accounting Office (GAO) study in 1999, out of 14 projects
> examined, in cities such as Denver, Portland, Salt Lake City, and
> Sacramento, about 60 percent of them on schedule and within budget.
> 79% were within 7% of budget or less.
>
> And please, don't equate bus "lobbyist" (alias Dr. Bus) John
> Shortreed, a key member of bus "advocacy" group, Taxpayers for
> Sensible Transit, as an unbiased expert. (For this Jan Narveson
> catalyzed band, buses are their begrudging ideological gift to the
> working poor but which they will never or rarely use themselves --
> their National Post friends don't even like public transit buses.)
>
> I hope this is of some use and helps stimulate further discussion.
> And I urge all of you to steal my secret weapon -- good research
> including km's & km's of fieldwork! Research is absolutely necessary
> because of the very great LRT project complexity and because we very
> much need LRT project success to help enhance our reputation for
> great Innovation towards that of great Sustainable Innovation.
>
> Best wishes,
> Robert (Call me please, 519-696-2288)
>
> PS: I had a good phone conversation with Randy after his email.
>
>
> On 4-Sep-10, at 7:21 PM, Jan Liggett wrote:
>
>> Hello Kevin,
>>
>> Randy makes the same points that Cambridge residents do. I didn't
>> see anything in your response though as to why the townships and
>> Cambridge residents should support this. Doug Craig no matter what
>> any person in Cambridge or elsewhere thinks of him as mayor, IS
>> speaking on behalf of the Cambridge taxpayer.
>> The cost of 790,000 was back four years ago. It was rushed through
>> ( I was there that night), with Jane Mitchell walking out because
>> regional council was told they had to vote on it that night without
>> proper evaluation of the project. She refused to be part of such
>> a rushed and costly decision. They were told the funding deadline
>> was imminent. The price has escalated since then (and that is
>> without the 10 - 25% cost over runs), but no one wants to talk
>> about that.
>> Cambridge and the townships were left out that night as well. The
>> excuse is that we don't have a high enough bus ridership. We don't
>> have high ridership because we HAVE to use our cars. The buses
>> don't run when & where we want them to. A personal example; I have
>> to drive my staff to the I Express bus stop if we work overtime
>> after 5:00 and today Saturday, there are no buses into the
>> industrial area where my company is located. Since he worked
>> overtime today, he had to get someone to drive him from his home by
>> Huron Rd and pick him up again. Across the street is a call centre
>> with 1,000's of employees and one of their biggest problems is the
>> buses.
>> I need employees to be able to get to and from work without having
>> to drive them myself. It's not enough to say Cambridge will get an
>> upgraded bus system but that they should pay the same amount as
>> Kitchener and Waterloo residents for the LRT. We should have had a
>> good bus system years ago and yet we are expected to trust that we
>> will eventually get what we are already paying for and not
>> getting. Would those who support the LRT support paying for it
>> without Cambridge and township residents helping with the costs?
>> Or if they do pay equally would KW residents approve of them
>> getting free bus service in those areas? In other words, what
>> would KW residents be willing to give to the townships and
>> Cambridge to make this equitable?
>> Even if it were to be built now, within 30 years there will have to
>> be upgrades, so to use your projections doesn't seem feasible.
>>
>> This isn't just about the environment when a large portion of the
>> population are left out. It is also about fairness or else it
>> becomes a situation of the haves and the have nots. What solutions
>> can be found? Thinking caps please.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Kevin Thomason
>> To: randybmclean at rogers.com
>> Cc: all at gren.ca
>> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 4:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [All] Fw: Rapid Transit Funding Update
>>
>> Randy,
>>
>> Good points, however with 300,000 more people coming in the next 20
>> years we have no choice but to put in the required public transit
>> needed to allow the city cores to take the majority of the density
>> of the people or the alternative is that you will no longer be
>> living out in the countryside - you will be overrun by endless
>> kilometers of urban sprawl like Mississauga, Milton or Ajax.
>>
>> If we want to keep our rural lands and countryside we need to
>> accommodate these people in the current urban areas and make it
>> appealing to them. Yes, $800 million is expensive but it is the
>> same cost as a few bridges over the Grand at $83 million each, or a
>> few kilometers of new expressways averaging roughly $14 million/per
>> km. Even if we have to come up with $300 million locally it is
>> still only a few months worth of the $1 billion/year Regional
>> budget and surely we can find a way to come up with it over the
>> next three decades - the taxes and user fees of the new folks alone
>> will more than pay for it many times over. Rapid transit is still
>> by far the cheapest of any of the alternatives - and way better
>> than buses which won't even take the capacities they are projecting
>> and will still cost almost $600 million.
>>
>> We have to remember that the rapid transit isn't really being built
>> for any of us here now but for the tens of thousands of people who
>> aren't even here yet. And don't worry - if we get a successful
>> main-line running from mall to mall it won't be long until
>> additional lines run from campus to campus. Just look at all the
>> LRT lines now in Calgary, Portland, or even emerging cities such as
>> Kuala Lumpur or anywhere in China. If they can do it successfully
>> so can we.
>>
>> What we need to do now is ensure that the LRT or any sort of public
>> transit improvements don't die because of mis-information, bad
>> media coverage, or a jealous Doug Craig shutting down the entire
>> project because he isn't getting trains at the onset like Kitchener
>> or Waterloo. Even the CTV poll the other day claiming 72% were
>> against the LRT actually was worded more about about increasing
>> taxes than public transit. It is amazing that anyone responded
>> that they were willing to pay more taxes let alone 28% saying they
>> were willing to pay more for better public transit.
>>
>> This is going to become the major issue of the election (likely
>> even more than amalgamation or fluoride). GREN needs to help
>> ensure people understand the issue, the consequences one way or
>> another, and the possibilities rather than just getting carried
>> away by a single budget number taken out of context with no regards
>> to all kinds of other capital expenditures already underway such as
>> the $500 million in construction happening in town on our
>> university/college campuses, the $300 million being spent on new
>> sewage treatment facilities, the $450 million being spent on roads
>> in just 3 years, the $150 million being spent on GO Transit, the
>> $1.5 billion being proposed for the pipeline to Lake Erie, etc.
>>
>> Even the $432 per person capital cost of the LRT cited by the
>> Record the other day only works out to $14.40 per year over the
>> next 30 years. Surely it is worth $14 each for all the benefits
>> world-class transit will bring our community be it better air
>> quality, new investment, jobs, vibrant urban cores, quality of
>> life, protecting our countryside, etc. The costs of not doing this
>> well will surely be more than $14.
>>
>> Kevin.
>>
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> On 2010-09-03, at 8:43 AM, randybmclean at rogers.com wrote:
>>
>>> I will ask the questions.
>>> 1/ have major capital, multi-government projects ever had
>>> significant overruns in cost?
>>> 2/ has any government ever backed out of their promise to finance?
>>> 3/ Living in North Dumfries why do I have to pay for something I
>>> see no use for especially when I only go to Kitchener and Waterloo
>>> about 2 times/ month and Cambridge about 1 time per week?
>>> 4/ Why are these end terminals from shopping mall to shopping mall
>>> and not from education centre to education centre?
>>> 5/ Does anyone else believe this will never get off the ground?
>>> From: all-bounces at gren.ca [mailto:all-bounces at gren.ca] On Behalf
>>> Of Robert Milligan
>>> Sent: September-03-10 2:16 AM
>>> To: Louisette Lanteigne
>>> Cc: all at gren.ca
>>> Subject: Re: [All] Fw: Rapid Transit Funding Update
>>> Thanks Lulu. Really great news, finally, especially because the
>>> need to be frugal can lead to significant technological innovation
>>> as in India and China. See http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=8551
>>> & http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6762f77a-77de-11df-82c3-00144feabdc0.html
>>> If so, things will get even more interesting as the Region
>>> hopefully struggles to avoid designing an LRT system that -- on
>>> detailed analysis -- can unfortunately be considered a potentially
>>> very costly "white elephant". I prefer potentially moderately
>>> costing successful "green elephants" that can fly fast (between
>>> terminals at Northfield & Ainslie) carrying many and many types of
>>> people on their back while very conservatively (my tip of the hat
>>> to Stephen Harper) using only renewable energy (via solar cells --
>>> for UltraBattery charging --covering the terminal areas).
>>> Will our Regional Government have the necessary insight, vision
>>> and wisdom to dream such a "green elephant" into reality? Or will
>>> a dream of a potential "green elephant" be forced to become a
>>> "white elephant" out of conventional bureaucratic fear of thinking
>>> outside-the-box? It is indeed unfortunate that our Regional
>>> Government in not supported in such potential creative innovation
>>> by a community culture of World-class pioneering innovation!
>>> I particularly appreciated the implied openness to some new
>>> possibilities in Chair Ken Seiling's statement, "Now that we know
>>> the amount of the federal and provincial funding,we can proceed to
>>> determine the best balance between available funding and the long-
>>> term, best interests of our community.”
>>> A key question is, "To help prevent our community's perceived
>>> innovative potential from being stomped on by a costly "white
>>> elephant", what IDEAS within the current LRT system design need to
>>> be enhanced -- with minimum disruption of the existing
>>> Environmental Assessment -- by better IDEAS (that have become
>>> apparent in recent months) for successful goal realization so as
>>> to be of an affordable cost and serve in a timely and equitable
>>> manner "the long-term, best interests of our community.”
>>> Robert (definitely not in support of same old, same old -- unless
>>> appropriately enhanced)
>>> P.S.: 1. Check out first how advanced some key Japanese LRT
>>> manufacturers (especially Kinki Sharyo) are in battery powered LRT
>>> vehicles, then second the now proven UltraBattery that would
>>> likely enable my suggested terminal to terminal on-board (braking
>>> enhanced) electrical energy storage requirements to be met. (The
>>> increased demand for air conditioning could be supplemented by
>>> solar cells on the LRT roof and heating for the coldest days
>>> supplemented by heaters that burn air pollution free hydrogen
>>> [that we produce ourselves from solar cells over our major land-
>>> fill sites].
>>> i) http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201008250414.html (I've been
>>> invited to take a ride on it when they come to the US in late
>>> fall, viz. "We will again present this vehicle at Innotrans and
>>> will have a scale model of the vehicle in our exhibit. At that
>>> time, the whole rail industry will become aware of the vehicle.
>>> We plan to demonstrate this vehicle in Charlotte NC in the 4th
>>> quarter of this year. If you would like a ride, let me know."
>>> ii) http://www.greencarsaregreat.com/blog/east-penn-manufacturing-granted-32-5-million-to-push-for-breakthrough-ultrabattery-in-the-united-states.php6
>>> (As East Penn will not be set to manufacture these until 2012, I
>>> have suggested that Kinki Sharyo enhance their demonstration tour
>>> vehicle to be able to switch between their Lithium-ion battery and
>>> Furakawa's -- same as sub-licensee East Penn Mfg.'s --proven
>>> UltraBattery which they manufacture now! Maybe their possible
>>> discussions with East Penn will lead to this initial action.)
>>> viz."Additionally, as I explained our vehicle is a platform that
>>> can be upgraded with new technology as it is advanced. ... if
>>> East Penn would like to work on a development with us I will float
>>> the idea."
>>> 2. I only wish that there was some way to better reach the
>>> community (beyond a measly 200 word, editor distorted, letter to
>>> the Record) with viable green IDEAS for the LRT system design --
>>> maybe I can create an IDEA to achieve this.
>>> Note: bcc's have been also sent to other parties who might be
>>> interested.
>>> On 2-Sep-10, at 8:55 PM, Louisette Lanteigne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Thu, 9/2/10, RTInfo <rtinfo at region.waterloo.on.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: RTInfo <rtinfo at region.waterloo.on.ca>
>>> Subject: Rapid Transit Funding Update
>>> To: butterflybluelu at rogers.com
>>> Date: Thursday, September 2, 2010, 4:25 PM
>>>
>>> It is my pleasure to share with you some important news about the
>>> Region of Waterloo’s rapid transit project.
>>>
>>> Below you will find the news release from today's announcement.
>>>
>>> Nancy Button
>>> Director, Rapid Transit
>>>
>>>
>>> The Government of Canada announces funding for rapid transit in
>>> Waterloo Region
>>>
>>> (September 2, 2010) The Government of Canada will provide one-
>>> third of eligible costs, up to $265 million to support the
>>> construction of the Region's rapid transit project. Prime Minister
>>> Stephen Harper came to Waterloo Region today to make the
>>> announcement.
>>>
>>> “We are pleased that the Federal government recognizes the
>>> importance of the Region’s rapid transit project, and has made
>>> this funding commitment to the initial phase of the project,” said
>>> Regional Chair Ken Seiling.
>>>
>>> In light of the Federal government’s funding commitment today and
>>> the Province of Ontario’s commitment of $300 million, the Region
>>> can now move forward with the planning of the project’s scope,
>>> design details, cost and Regional funding options. The goal will
>>> be to identify the Phase 1 project that provides best value to the
>>> community and is affordable to Regional taxpayers given the
>>> available federal and provincial funding. Regional staff will
>>> evaluate various options for consideration and final decision by
>>> Regional Council.
>>>
>>> “Now that we know the amount of the federal and provincial
>>> funding, we can proceed to determine the best balance between
>>> available funding and the long-term, best interests of our
>>> community,” said Regional Chair Ken Seiling.
>>>
>>> In June 2009, based on the extensive evaluation and analysis
>>> conducted during the Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment,
>>> Regional Council:
>>> • Approved a light rail transit (LRT) system from Waterloo to
>>> Cambridge as the Region’s long-term preferred rapid transit system;
>>> • Recognized that a staged implementation would be required to
>>> reflect the financial resources required and to ensure the best
>>> match of transit technology to ridership and intensification
>>> potential; and
>>> • Approved the initial phase of the project which includes LRT
>>> from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall and adapted bus rapid
>>> transit from Fairview Park Mall to the Ainslie Street Terminal in
>>> Cambridge.
>>>
>>> For more information on the rapid transit project, please visit
>>> the website at www.region.waterloo.on.ca/rapidtransit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> All mailing list
>>> All at gren.ca
>>> http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> All mailing list
>>> All at gren.ca
>>> http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> All mailing list
>> All at gren.ca
>> http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
>> _______________________________________________
>> All mailing list
>> All at gren.ca
>> http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100906/f2b8a1d3/attachment.html>
More information about the All
mailing list