[All] Your WR Record letter, "Cambridge was failing" (corrected version)

[Robert Milligan]

Paul,

I am writing this email because you asked me to communicate by email.  
But I would also really like to have an exploratory (and more  
interactive) telephone conversation with you. (519-696-2288)

Let me say how very much I appreciate citizens who are thinking about  
our Region's potential LRT then expressing their concerns in  
assertive, well-written letters to the editor.

As a person who has likely invested more time and effort in this Rapid  
Transit project (and earlier in Regional roads) than any other 10  
people -- and who lobbied for the integration of KT and CT -- I see  
the need for more citizens to do the necessary transit research so as  
to optimize their constructive feedback and IDEAS.

As I have had many LRT (or RTI) discussions with Doug Craig -- and  
even more with Ken Seiling -- I am in a good position (especially as I  
live in the "neutral territory" of New Dundee) to interpret their  
views (and those of other Councillors and staff).

And I fear that the Region's and K-W's unfair treatment of Cambridge  
over the years -- which seems to be too motivated (even unconsciously)  
by trying to keep an "uppity"  "second class" community in its place  
-- could have dire consequences for the integrity and reputation of  
our Region.

A worst outcome could be that Cambridge soon seeks successfully --  
after a plebiscite -- to become geographically part of Wellington  
County and forms close ties with Guelph aided by a GC LRT along the  
underutilized GEXR/CN tracks (20km x $5M/km = $100M including the LRT  
vehicles).

The University of Waterloo models to all the Region and beyond the  
keystone values of Innovation & Collaboration. "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://www.uwaterloo.ca/aboutuw/

The practice of many Regional Councillors -- and some staff -- seem to  
imply contrary values.

This is demonstrated by the great inability of these councillors and  
staff to collaborate with Cambridge -- to the Region's advantage in so  
many ways. (Councillor Jane Mitchell's Cinderella comment about  
Cambridge was viciously irresponsible -- and probably orchestrated by  
somebody else! Shame on you Jane and ... !)

Further indication comes from their lack of support for an Innovative  
-- and more cost-effective --  LRT system design, Instead, they  
blindly-support an excessive tax-money-wasting and likely poorly-used  
white elephant  LRT plan.

Such unproductive values and actions surely will  diminish our  
Region's Pioneering Innovation image around the World.

To be more specific, the Regional & K-W modus operandi seems to be, "  
Stop complaining about your unfair treatment or we will punish you!".  
(Carl Zehr's talk a few months ago to the Cambridge CofC in support of  
a Cambridge GO-Train was a welcomed exception -- good for you Carl.)

(And I look forward to Ken Seiling speaking similarly such as by  
supporting a more cost-effective LRT to Cambridge now! Perhaps God  
will whisper such a suggestion in his ear soon as Ken plays his  
heavenly music at Waterloo's First United Church. I fear that once Ken  
gets angry at a person or community, only God can change that anger in  
his heart to forgiveness and love!)

In a July 2010 letter the Record, Claudette detailed many of these mal- 
treatments by the Region (and Province), http://www.therecord.com/opinion/letters/article/296207--cambridge-deserves-a-fair-share 
.

As I end this email, let me say that my LRT research -- involving  
mostly proven transit and
renewable energy IDEAS -- suggests that a more thoughtful type of  
staging (I might call it Smart LRT as opposed to ... ) would enable us  
to extend the LRT along a shorter, faster, safer, much less  
expensive,  ,,, route (& of greater capacity) to the Ainslie Terminal.

Such an extended and truly rapid routing (with express bus cross  
connections) would attract significant numbers of working middle-class  
drivers from their cars to lessen traffic congestion. And  
intensification goals would be better met -- but more slowly realized  
because of the Provinces (necessary) -- and affected Federal --  
funding shortfall.

We could have a more functionally more successful LRT at a very  
livable cost -- and treat Cambridge more fairly in the process. But  
unfortunately Ken will lead the attack against such an approach as he  
did before, during and now after the election -- and for reasons  
irrational !

My next LRT Report will detail such an approach -- and I would hope  
for feedback from you on the draft.

Regards,
Robert


PS:

!, The pro-LRT group is meeting in dowmtowm Waterloo 6;30 tonight at  
the restaurant,
Whole Lot-A Gelata near (south of) Wordsworth Bookstore.

2. My response to Jane Mitchell's response to me changing her last  
name to Brewer in my comment about her excellent constructive  
criticism towards greater Regional harmony is as follows:

I've just apologized to Jane Brewer -- and will send out a corrected  
email soon. Sorry to not include you.  Also, I thought I already asked  
and answered the question, "Ask yourself why in the world the rest of  
the Region would put down Cambridge." (Your hollow sarcasm contributes  
little to a very serious subject -- and please try not to abuse the  
Cinderella story again so that I and other disappointed Regional  
citizens can safely recover our positive view of you as a Regional  
Councillor. The key is creative harmonization of difference -- a  
subject that organist Seiling SHOULD be an expert on c.f. dissonance.)

But let me ask you a question. Why would many RTI staff and most  
Regional Councillors decide to not extend the LRT to Cambridge  
(Ainslie Terminal) when it can be done -- with a little innovation  
modeled on other cities like Ottawa's O-train -- for much less ($5M/km  
x 30 km = $150M plus $141M [likely more than 1/2 this cost if single  
track] for 3km along KW's King St. [$1.55B/33 km = $47M/km; 3km x $47M/ 
km = $141M]) IF the rail right-of-way is used as the LRT's truly  
rapid  backbone? We could afford to include the Charles/Ottawa  
intensification loop for approx. 1/2 x 4km x $47M/km = $94M.

This suggests additional ways to stage the future up-grading of the  
LRT system to the great advantage of Canadian taxpayers and of LRT  
users (and intensification developers).

And I sincerely hope you can appreciate how very expensive/km the  
Regional LRT Plan is. "Because it uses an existing rail line, it cost  
only about $4 million (2001 dollars) per kilometer to set up this 8km  
line, including the cost of track upgrades, signaling, simple  
stations, and three Bombardier Talent diesel light rail vehicles. ...  
He (Mayor Chiarelli) marvelled at the low cost of DLRT on existing  
rail lines, ... ."

Also the greater extended length, shorter routing, no LRT/BRT  
transfer, the greater speed and capacity, ... would enable the LRT to  
significantly attract middle-class drivers from their cars -- to  
enable Ken & staff to go beyond pretense on this. By not including  
Cambridge, Regional Councillors would be shooting the LRT project "in  
the foot". Now that is not what any reasonable citizen would call  
smart, Jane MIITCHELL! I can appreciate rings on fingers but not in  
noses tied to Ken's rope!


3. Here is a copy of a year-old RT Report of mine:

World-class Pioneering Innovation: Key to light rail transit success

Innovator's Credo, “Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.   
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.” Goethe, http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/251-300/article281_body.htm

Waterloo Region has been gifted with a pioneering innovative spirit.  
Yet in its biggest innovative challenge ever -- the very expensive $2B 
+ Rapid Transit Initiative (RTI) project -- the Regional Government  
has created a light rail transit (LRT) system design which is very  
ordinary, a potential under-performer and of uncertain success . This  
has generated only lukewarm general support and a very vocal opposition.

[Note: the $2B+  cost {2011 dollars} is for when Cambridge finally  
gets its LRT in 2035 under the Region's current plan.]

Unfortunately, public debate has been framed mostly about LRT vs BRT  
(bus rapid transit). Little attention has been given to examining the  
adequacy of the current LRT system design and what proven -- or even  
new research-based -- transit innovations could be integrated to make  
the design more cost-effective and more certain of success.

Worse, the design has an overemphasis on intensification by double  
track along roads at very, very great expense. The budget item for  
moving existing above & below road infrastructure is $300M!!

The potential intensification roads in our Central Transit Corridor  
(CTC) are very different from the oft cited 5 mi. Portland LRT road  
corridor that goes through an area ripe for intensification. That some  
LRT system designs don't intensify (or attract) as in San Jose also  
adds to intensification uncertainty.

But more, LRT excessively along roads -- even with dedicated lanes --  
will drastically decrease potential LRT system performance. Likely it  
will be slower than the I-Express.

Perhaps their sensing of a faulty systems design explains why both  
sides of the LRT issue are signaling that they are not so confident of  
success. The views of ordinary citizens and taxpayers count -- they at  
least have an intuitive intelligence and can sense poor quality &/or a  
likely impending calamity!

Recognition of potentially faulty technological design is never easy,  
especially when much effort has been invested in its creation and the  
organization has been historically very successful. Just look at Toyota.

By analogy, if such above public views are the type of market survey  
response to a proposed new version of RIM's Blackberry, they would  
quickly go back to the drawing board -- likely enhancing the good work  
done already! That's exactly what I am suggesting be done with the  
Region's light rail transit LRT system design!

Staff and consultants for LRT projects need "to think outside the  
traditional light rail box" suggests transportation engineering  
professor and the initial general manager of the southern New Jersey's  
River LINE, Alfred E. Fazio.

Fazio said, "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. ... There are real indications that the line serves not only  
as an alternative to the automobile, but is also helping re-energize  
the historic communities it links together. ... the whole project (is)  
close to revolutionary." http://www.masstransitmag.com/print/Mass-Transit/Unique-Rail/1$2192

The Region of Waterloo has a big "responsibility" to our area's  
universities and hi-tech companies to match their World-class level of  
Pioneering Innovation in its LRT system design. Otherwise, the RTI  
project's likely insufficient success will degrade the innovation- 
potential of these two essential economic engines rather than helping  
to advance them.

This insufficient success will be indicated in part by few car  
commuters switching to an LRT
designed at very high cost to be too slow -- and by the resulting  
rapidly developing extreme traffic congestion. This will increasingly  
make our Region a less desirable place for hi-tech businesses --  
unless we go from  a "not good enough" transit system design to an  
outstanding design.

We need a successful World-leading transit system that will generally  
improve our environmental quality of life. But also our transit design  
could help advance our innovative position in the World by symbolizing  
and creatively showcasing our rapidly developing multi-facited techno- 
cultural uniqueness.

But as we innovate in this time of economic instability and  
exponentially growing debt, large investment risk must be minimized.  
Even "approved" major government-funded projects, like our LRT system,  
must have their designs creatively "TWEAKED"  towards greater -- and  
more certain -- cost-effectiveness.

And with so much taxpayer's money and the Region's innovative  
reputation at stake, Professor Casello and the Region have to swallow  
their pride and re-visit the current LRT system design so as to better  
ensure it will "fly" in the eyes of our Regional "engaged society".

To achieve this absolutely necessary very high level of success, we  
must have the courage to be innovatively bold in Regional government  
also. The current ultra-caution -- reflected in the current design --  
is an inhibitor of World-class Pioneering Innovation while bold dreams  
are an initiator!

The design challenges -- limited by time and funding constraints --  
include how to optimally:
increase cost-effectiveness generally;  make very hi-cost  
intensification by LRT viable in our unique urban contexts; and  
attract the middle class out of their cars. This will require thinking  
very much outside the box to develop the enhancement ideas needed to  
transform our current design into a World-leading Pioneering LRT  
system design.

A viable approach to subtly "TWEAK" the current transit proposal  
towards this more certain success could be by integrating common sense  
innovative design enhancements that are mostly proven but also some --  
aided by our universities --  could be more advanced, even  
experimental. This means giving the proposal a greater research basis  
-- part of a smart strategy -- thus reducing billion $ investment  
uncertainty!

In summary, the resulting design enhancements must be extra-ordinary  
so as to bring optimal cost-effectiveness, generally minimize any  
uncertainty of success and create the greatest LRT system design we  
are capable of!

And only then will our LRT system design most likely be a worthy  
exemplar to the World. It's not too late if we have the will to do it.  
Let's explore some design enhancement ideas developed and proven for  
rail transportation use.


Design enhancement ideas

You all know CN/VIA uses mostly a single track between Kitchener and  
Toronto. What you may not know is that for such situations they and  
other NA railways have put in longer passing tracks for trains to by- 
pass each other at speed. And the use of fail-safe computer  
communications makes this approach more efficient.

We can adopt this technology -- known as Intelligent Transportation  
Systems by the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) who support it  
-- as part of enhancing the LRT routing design so as to help increase  
average speed, enable longer trains, shorten distance between  
terminals, prove intensification effects, drastically decrease rail  
installation costs, ... . How?

Instead of 2 tracks mostly on streets, we could use single tracks but  
have 2 rail corridors: a primary higher-speed corridor along our  
existing rail right-of-way from Waterloo's Northfield Dr. (Terminal)  
to Cambridge's Ainslie Terminal; and  secondary intensification  
corridors through re-planned zones such as along K/W's King St. and  
Cambridge's Hespler Rd.

Longer passing tracks -- with computer communications -- for by- 
passing between stations on the primary rail right-of-way corridor  
could also be used. A slight modification of this idea would be to use  
the same type of by-passing approach by using shorter passing tracks  
at stations  -- in both the primary (higher capacity) and secondary  
rail corridors.

Keep in mind that installing dedicated tracks along a street is  
comparatively very very expensive, very disruptive during construction  
and uses precious road lane(s). And the intensification effect (and  
expected ridership) may not materialize as some LRT systems  
demonstrate, e.g. in San Jose, http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/29/san-jose-plots-a-renewal-of-its-struggling-light-rail-network/ 
.

To help make large financial investments in secondary intensification  
street corridors less risky, we could install a track on K/W's King  
St. first. Then, implementing the most appropriate intensification by- 
laws, etc. of our own creation &/or adopted from other "LRT"  
jurisdictions, we could adaptively innovate until we have a  
satisfactory intensification "solution" -- one that is also (likely)  
largely applicable for other selected streets in our Region.

The primary and secondary rail corridors would be interconnected so  
that a major stoppage on one rail corridor could lead to a temporary  
re-routing.

A major multimodal hub terminal could be built between King and Joseph  
Sts. with a pedestrian/bicyclist track crossover to connect with GRT  
buses, taxis and cars also on the
north side of the CN/Via tracks. The south side would additionally  
interconnect the 2 LRT
corridors and the GO/VIA trains. (Sketch has been developed)

This approach to the HUB would not only avoid a very costly ($30M+)  
and problematic (re: toxic chemicals, etc.) King St. 2-track tunnel  
under the CN tracks but make possible a UofW Technology Research Park  
between King, Victoria, Duke and Breitupt. Also, the new UofW  
Kitchener campus would run from Duke over to Park -- likely including   
the Kitchener Maintenance Facility. With the pedestrian/bicyclist  
track crossover, other properties could also be considered.

As an environmental sustainability effort and to reduce rail costs  
further, we could engage in track sharing with CN and CP. There are  
many proven precedents -- especially in Europe -- for LRT and even  
heavy rail to share track even during the same time period. The safer  
and more acceptable way in NA is to "persuade" the heavy freight rail  
companies to use their under-utilized tracks during overnight hours  
only.

For our Region, this could work with help from the Federal and  
Provincial governments --their motivation would be the saving of $M's  
on capital costs for track and bridge construction. Obviously, this  
would best work for under-utilized rail sections of which there
are many kilometers, viz. the Region owned spur line from Northfield  
to Caroline, CN spur line from King to other side of Grand River, CN  
track from Dolph St. to Hespler Rd., etc.

But more, the LRT-core could be just-in-time interconnected (another  
Intelligent transportation systems use) with better buses -- such as  
ones that use new composite materials and new battery designs. See, http://www.proterraonline.com/transit.asp 
.

This new Proterra advanced bus design (only one approved by  
California) could be the basis for a new (Waterloo Region catalyzed  
with private partners?) leading-edge bus and LRT manufacturing plant  
at the former Budd site on Homer Watson Rd.

Further, this RTI project related advanced LRT/bus manufacturing plant  
would be a great leap beyond what the forward-thinking Hamilton  
Chamber of Commerce recommends to complement the proposed Hamilton  
LRT, see "Light Rail Transit Made in Hamilton",
http://hamiltonlightrail.com/article/coc_resolution_light_rail_transit_made_in_hamilton/ 
.


Conclusion

Our unique urban transportation problems and these difficult times  
demand more political and public support for the integration of needed  
very innovative LRT ideas. They must be such that they will more cost- 
effectively enhance and make more certain of success our LRT system  
design. This means transit engineers and planners -- where normally  
they would seek the easy stovepipe or vanilla LRT/bus system design --  
must be brought on-board into the new Regional "thinking-outside-the- 
box" reality of World-class Pioneering Innovation.

Specifically, we must tell our Regional civil servants -- their  
consultants and advisors also -- that we really need is a positive  
"Magic" LRT System  Design that : 1. integrates leading-edge ideas --  
as a key feature of a re-invented "smart" infrastructure and urban  
environment generally; 2. is so innovative, exciting and beneficial  
that local people will enjoy using this transit system more than their  
cars; 3. plays a very effective role in intensifying our urban cores  
so as to help fight urban sprawl: 4. will help better grow this  
Region's Pioneering Innovative Potential; 5. will be an LRT that is  
remarkable to us and the World; 6. thus could help attract the World  
here -- in person & by internet -- to learn in detail about our  
exemplar LRT and our other unique social innovations.


Robert Milligan, BSc(Math-Physics), is a former business systems  
analyst and environmental
health analyst. He has been a social  & environmental catalyst for  
over 40 years. In retirement, he has freely given over 2000 hours of  
fieldwork, meetings, article research and thought to the Region's  
Rapid Transit Initiative project.
February 27,  2010 @New Dundee






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110223/8d07c211/attachment.html>