[All] Smart ultra-cost-effective LRT System
Robert Milligan
mill at continuum.org
Wed Jun 15 08:46:25 EDT 2011
To All, (ideally not for Blackberry viewing)
This has just been completed. Sorry but my long duration respiratory
virus and fatigue that lingered delayed the creation of this article.
My wife Lovisa likes it and I am satisfied -- maybe you will find it
of interest.
Best wishes,
Robert M
PS: pdf version at end
Smart ultra-cost-effective LRT System: A necessity to help develop a
more Sustainably Innovative Culture in our Region and beyond
"An exciting, fast, safe, comfortable, hi-capacity, even
educational, ... LRT train that uses in an upgradeable manner proven
sustainably innovative IDEAS -- smart technology, hybrid propulsion
systems, solar cells, ... -- to realize both an "order-of-magnitude"
lower LRT system costs (very approx. $491M in KW & $217M in C) and
dramatically increase transit system performance. Not only will this
"disruptive" approach model a robust sustainable innovation to the
World, it will earn the vote of most citizens."
Only a light rail transit (LRT) system has the potential to utilize
proven sustainably innovative IDEAS to make a very significant
improvement in cost-effectiveness.
Yes, I support many features of the Region's current plan including
much of the track routing and station locations, an electric LRT
vehicle, strong emphasis on intensification, etc. But like 95% of the
candidates in last fall's municipal elections -- and many others -- I
do not support the current LRT plan.
In 3000+ hours of effort on this rapid transit project -- applying a
strong background in business systems analysis, science, technology,
etc. -- I have tried to balance all community and organizational
interests. I have done this by objectively listening to their major
preferences and concerns, then researching practicality and validity.
These activities were the basis for creatively innovating in track and
vehicle design by incorporating proven innovative technologies towards
a minimally altered LRT plan. It would be dramatically less expensive
yet achieve all of the benefits desired by community & Region -- and
then some.
Perhaps a sufficient number of the IDEAS presented here would merit
your support as a good start towards an improved LRT plan that would
give taxpayers a significant return on capital investment -- and
greatly reduce operating cost subsidies.
If so, then I hope that you will support/advocate for a motion on June
15th (and reconsideration after that) in which Councillors ask the
Provincial and Federal governments for six months for us to
collaboratively enhance the LRT plan using a Broad-Spectrum Innovation
Team composed of not only innovation-supporting staff and consultants
but also proven citizen LRT innovators (from here or elsewhere).
To help inspire you in this direction, let me ask you, "suppose we
could creatively use proven sustainably innovative IDEAS to enhance
the current light rail transit plan so that it became much more:
affordable, road-sparing, disruption-minimizing, technology-leading,
time-saving (faster, more direct, just-in-time tech, ...), safety-
ensuring, capacity-expansive, comfortable, ... -- and even a means of
sustainable innovation (SI) education by example and by on-board
interactive e-media?" Let me elaborate.
With this SI-type LRT (Sustainable Innovation Express?) as the
backbone of our bus-integrated transit system, we would be modeling a
robust sustainable innovation to the World and generally point the way
towards a more Sustainably Innovative Culture.
Now I will explore how a slightly altered LRT plan could, by
performance and as a role model, significantly contribute to expanding
our Region's (and more) innovative potential. I refer to this as the
Smart ultra-cost-effective LRT System Plan which is designed to
greatly exceed all current expectations for ridership,
intensification, etc.
But before I do: Thirty eight per cent LRT support is likely closer to
reality. This means that we have a decision dilemma with a majority
against all 3 options, Only an LRT system has the potential to include
sufficient sustainable innovative ideas so as to create the Smart
ultra-cost-effective LRT System necessary to earn majority voter
support -- and World recognition in the process. This could be the
basis for requesting both levels of government for more time to
collaboratively innovate such an enhanced plan.
SMART LRT VEHICLE
Ottawa's O-Train -- example of non-catenary LRT but with potentially
upgradeable old diesel-electric technology. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wyatt/alltime/pics/ottawa-otrain.html
Latest generation Stadler GTW diesel-electric (potentially
upgradeable) LRT near Austin, Texas, A different GTW LRT is employed
by New Jersey's River Line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_GTW
The LRT vehicles would be the most prominent and newsworthy feature of
the LRT system. So it is fortuitous that the major sustainable
innovative IDEAS would be mostly on the vehicle and not the track
system. This will help maximize the likelihood of initial and
continuing success -- for ourselves and in the World's eyes.
A strategy of initial best possible technologies and continuously
upgrading in a cost-effective manner using new appropriate
technologies -- especially a more sustainable off-grid propulsion
system -- will help ensure best-possible performance and a perpetual
World-class rating.
The Perimeter Institute's recent EQUINOX Conference indicated the
necessity to ASAP globally implement reliable, safe, renewable, and
non-carbon sources of energy in a conserving manner if we are to
continue Humanity's complex advancement. (e.g."A Paradigm Shift
Towards Sustainable, Low-Carbon Transport", http://www.itdp.org/documents/A_Paradigm_Shift_toward_Sustainable_Transport.pdf)
The Region's current LRT plan is counter to this objective. It calls
for a LRT vehicle that uses very basic electrical technologies that
date back to early streetcars -- a DC electric motor and an overhead
wire (catenary) for DC power. This approach would use the current
electrical grid as a power source which involves mostly carbon-energy
and other potentially unsafe means of power generation. And carbon-
caused worsening storms will make large generating plants and their
transmission lines less stable.
Further, as a power-grid based approach, it is also subject to large
rate increases especially during daytime use. And to build a catenary
power system would represent about one quarter of the project capital
costs.
These electrical power source problems could be solved in an exemplary
manner if we used new smart technologies -- especially propulsion
systems proven in the auto industry. Although lagging auto makers,
many LRT vehicle manufacturers are currently using various propulsion
energy approaches (including smaller bench-type all-battery LRT's from
2 Japanese manufacturers).
I am suggesting that a combination energy approach is best for the
sake of reliability (independence, redundancy, ...), operating costs
(self-generate energy), up-grading (exponential advances, modular
design) and modeling (SI education locally and globally). Here are my
initial best suggestions:
1. Batteries as the primary on-board energy source because they enable
grid-independence via charging by large banks of solar cells with
stationary vanadium flow batteries at terminals and central
maintenance yard. This technology is finally improving rapidly as
evidenced by the new Nissan Leaf (lithium ion battery, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf#Battery)
. But now arrives Germany's government-proven extraordinary Lithium-
Metal-Polymer Battery (vanadium cathode) whose high-performance design
allows for a relatively much smaller and lighter battery, http://gmvolt.com/forum/showthread.php?5538-DBM-s-Lithium-Metal-Polymer-Battery
;
2, Ultra-capacitors (efficient, fast, light, long-lasting, ...) for
capturing braking energy, then releasing it to assist in vehicle
acceleration. Suggested use of off-vehicle form so as to conserve LRT
vehicle space and to minimize exposure to electro-magnetic fields from
high "power" flows. (Note use of on-board form -- and primary grid-
dependent energy source -- by Spanish manufacturer CAF, http://www.nesscap.com/news/press_view.jsp?seq=96.)
;
3. Hydrogen V-10 combustion engine used by small Ford in-production
buses, http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=20332.
When connected to an electricity generator, it could be used for
emergency power, topping-up battery, heating, air-conditioning,
lighting and other power uses -- as needed. The use of hydrogen in a
transit system would help prepare the community for the greater use of
hydrogen in fuel cells. The Green Box waste could be used to produce
methane, then in cooperation with a new local business, produce
hydrogen (and carbon composite-grade carbon feed). This would help
familiarize local governments, businesses and citizens with the use
and generation of hydrogen -- perhaps catalyzing entrepreneurs to
create new hydrogen and carbon composite businesses ;
4. Solar cells on the vehicle roof, an in-production hybrid car
technology with a 2 to 3 year payback, could be used to spare both the
primary battery and hydrogen, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/solar_hybrid_ca.php
.
5. Control software both on-board and in a control centre (redundancy
for safety) -- with track, vehicle, station and GPS sensors -- so as
to optimize: safety (e.g. forced stopping) , speed, energy use, single
track use
(Cambridge, bridges, tunnels, etc.), passing track use (at-stations &
between some).
6. Carbon composite materials for panels -- starting to be used by
Siemens and other LRT vehicle manufacturers -- would help reduce
weight (but retain collision strength) thus requiring less energy to
accelerate and maintain speed. Perhaps the support frames might be
available in a few years as this Teijin Limited auto application might
suggest,
http://asiatoday.com/pressrelease/teijin-establishes-worlds-first-mass-production-technologies-carbon-fiber-reinforced-pl
Perhaps PI/RIM might be willing to financially encourage the modeling
of these above innovative energy technologies as part of our LRT
system. The LRT vehicle could best operate using some of the newest
(yet proven) of these sustainable energy innovations -- using (smart)
software to optimally control them.
ULTRA COST-EFFECTIVE TRACK SYSTEM
While the very innovative SMART LRT vehicle might be the major focus
of the World's limelight, this attention would only happen in a
positive sense if it operated on an ULTRA COST-EFFECTIVE TRACK SYSTEM.
The major new strategy suggested for the track system design is use
SMART innovative technologies. This would transform existing
insufficient infrastructure --single tracks (with passing tracks
added), single track bridges and tunnels --into SMART infrastructure
thus enabling their efficient and safe use. Physical up-grading might
never have to be implemented.
As with Ottawa's O-Train LRT and Calgary's C-Train LRT, this involves
a much more extensive use of the rail right-of-way.
This differs greatly from the Region's questionable strategy --
apparent to many -- of spend-a-lot-now yet greatly underperform, then
add-on-later (maybe) if the results are at least mediocre. Let me be
specific.
In the Region's current LRT plan, their track (routing) system
excessively uses roads in a very disruptive manner -- especially re:
existing road infrastructure -- and overbuilds when it uses the rail
right-of-way.
The Region's approach here would: 1) be the major cost factor in an
unnecessarily very expensive $40M per km. LRT system; and 2) greatly
impede LRT vehicle performance in terms of speed (speed limits), time
(more delays & circuitous route ), safety (road accidents more
likely), capacity (length limits and shorter "stations" on streets),
ridership (abridged track length), intensification (majority students
& working poor discourage investment), ...
To elaborate, our Region's LRT plan uses the rail right-of-way much
less than they could and when they do, a much higher capital cost is
incurred because they remove existing heavy-rail tracks, re-build them
at a side of the rail right-of-way, then build 2 new LRT tracks on the
other side with a catenary system. This costs just as much as their
approach to 2-tracks on a road.
Also, this Regional LRT plan will not adequately address W-K-C's
developing peak-period congestion on our major north-south roads --
even expanded Hwy 8 has bottleneck sections and just a minor accident
can make one late for work. And horribly-jammed Hespler Rd. would get
even worse.
This Regional LRT plan, even with express bus connections from the
east and west suburbs, will not meet sufficiently the key transit-time
requirement to compete with a car commute. Gas prices may help, but
likely not be a big factor for most potential LRT commuters --
especially as the cost of hybrid and battery-only cars starts to
decrease.
If the Regional LRT plan is implemented at very high cost and is
mostly considered unsuccessful in terms of quantity and "quality" of
ridership, then it will lose its luster possibly being stamped with a
failure stigma. Such an eventuality would make the LRT a much reduced
incentive for developers.
As I have implied, along with the SMART LRT Vehicle, the key ULTRA
COST-EFFECTIVE TRACK SYSTEM could help make this potential dark cloud
of failure blow away. How?
Both Ottawa's O-Train especially and Calgary's C-Train provide
excellent examples of ways to increase performance and lower costs.
Both use right-of-ways -- exclusively with Ottawa and mostly with
Calgary -- thus enabling the LRT vehicles to realize higher speed and
capacity, greater safety and much lower cost capital and operating
costs.
Similarly, we could build -- double-track to Fairview Mall and single-
track with passing tracks to Ainslie Terminal -- on the faster-than-
roads, relatively inexpensive and mostly under-utilized W-K-C rail
right-of-way corridor (incl. Iron Horse Rail/Trail). As with the O-
Train (LRT system cost, $3M/km!), we could very inexpensively upgrade
existing track, then add passing tracks (or a second track).
As was done in Ottawa and Calgary, we could cooperate with our
railways -- CN/GEXR, CP & GO-Train -- to arrange for our more
extensive use of their sections of the rail right-of-way. Their under-
utilized track from approx. the Grand River to the main CN line would
require some very innovative thinking to achieve time-locked use. (My
numerous talks with them have led to good possibilities.)
Also the railways would have to realize significant benefits --
operational &/or financial -- in any such venture.
For example, a new fairly inexpensive 3-track transfer yard could be
built by the Region on almost-free MTO land approx. defined by the
Grand R., CP tracks, Sportsworld Dr., and Hwy 8.
Then CP could operate during the day but not have to slowly travel to
the Courtland transfer yard. GEXR only would have to be financially
encouraged to operate at night thus freeing up the only conflicting
section of track for regular LRT use.
Where heavy-rail tracks are quite frequently used -- with often very
long CP/Toyota car-carrier trains -- space is available along-side
their existing tracks. Also rail right-of-way from earlier times, now
often trails (Iron Horse, Mill Creek) or roads (only Caroline St.) can
be shared with rail -- with a trail safety fence or an (even artistic)
sub-division privacy and noise dampening wall.
This sets the stage for our potential use of the N-S rail right-of-way
from a St.
Jacob's Stockyard Market Terminal 34 km. to Cambridge's Ainslie St.
Terminal. Here Ottawa's very successful 8 km. O-Train also models a
great way to proceed not only with the track building but the related
LRT vehicle.
To be more specific than previously, the new much lower cost approach
would involve upgrading existing single tracks (and signals), adding
passing tracks (as currently in Ottawa) or a second track (as planned
in Ottawa).
Some currently unused parts of the rail right-of-way would require
completely new single or double tracks (Caroline, Iron Horse Rail/
Trail, then Hespler Rd. to Ainslie Terminal via at least a Mill Creek
Rail/Trail.
And control systems such as Intelligent Transportation software
technology would ensure that all the single-track bridges and tunnels
-- and passing tracks -- do not degrade speed or safety.
By using a catenary-system-free approach -- a Bombardier Talent diesel-
electric vehicle -- the O-Train saved 1/4 on the capital costs and
helped simplify the track system building (faster construction) and
likely improved the potential for railway collaboration (fewer CN/CP
safety concerns). With the proposed SMART LRT Vehicle, we could
benefit similarly.
The O-Train plan also involved upgrading the existing track and
signals, and a number of new constructions: a passing track, tunnel
under a lake, 6 stations, etc. Including the 3 LRT vehicles, the O-
Train's LRT system cost in 2001 was $3M/km ($23.2M/8km) -- with 15
min. frequency.
Ball Park Cost for Proposed LRT System including 34km. rail right-of-
way backbone (St. J. Mkt. Terminal to Ainslie St. Terminal) and 3 W-K-
C Intensification Corridors (by adjustments to both O-Train's $3M/km
cost rate for rail right-of-way & Region's current $1550M/39km = $40M/
km for roads):
1) O-Train LRT System Cost: $3M/km (2001) = approx. $5M/km (2011);
2) Cambridge cost: $5M/km x 16km = $90M (16km single track, 15 min
freq.);
3) KW cost: $20M/km x 18km. = $360M ($5M/km becomes $10M/km for a
second track, then $20M/km for a 7.5 min. frequency)
4) Experimental KW King St LRT Corridor cost: $25M/km x 1.9km = $47M
($40M/km using single LR55 track reduces to approx. $25M/km)
5) LRT Backbone to Kit. HUB cost: $5M/km x 1.75km = $9M
6) Subtotal: $506M (perhaps best not to proceed further until KW King
St. Experimental Corridor results)
7) Hespler Rd. rail connector cost: $5M/km x 3km = $15M
8) Hespler Rd. cost: $30M/km x 3.75km = $112M ($25M/km becomes $30M/km
-- extra work requ'd on blvd. & curbs)
9) Charles/Borden Streets cost: $25M/km x 3km = $75M
Total LRT System Cost: $708M (allows funds for LRT vehicle innovations)
Cambridge total cost: $217M
KW total cost: $491M
What more can we do to move even further towards an ULTRA COST-
EFFECTIVE TRACK SYSTEM?
The Region could offer to collaborate with CP in building a 2+-track
rail bridge across the Speed River -- instead of 1-track across the
road bridge. It might help smooth collaboration with CP, especially
since they have unofficially expressed concerns about the safety of
the existing bridge relative to limitations on braking as the Shantz
Hill is descended.
Besides just-in-time links at stations with cross-connecting express
buses during peak periods, we could acquire smaller buses that would
be used for computer-scheduled door-to-LRT-to-destination (& return)
connections -- similar to an approach used by NJ's River LINE.
Also, the Region could acquire very inexpensive land north of
Sportsworld Dr. between the CP tracks and Hwy 8 for a centrally-
located LRT maintenance facility.
EXPERIMENTAL INTENSIFICATION CORRIDOR ON KW'S KING ST.
An experimental (pedestrian/cyclist friendly) initial intensification-
loop mostly along KW's King St from Alan and Caroline Streets to the
Victoria St. HUB. It would include a dedicated bicycle lane (like
Montreal) and a single-track (with passing-track at Union Blvd. that
could be expanded to a 2nd track) LRT using much less expensive & less
disruptive LR55 track [http://www.trampower.co.uk/track.html].
This King St. experimental approach that complements the main LRT
(rail right-of-way from St. Jacobs to Ainslie Terminal) corridor --
with additional non-peak stops -- would help prove & improve
"intensification-by-LRT" IDEAS before we incur great additional
expense for Charles/Borden and Hespler Rd. (with CN rail line
connector to 401 end?).
Also, because the main LRT corridor (rail right-of way) would make
traveling time and use generally less critical on this intensification-
loop, very expensive underground utility upgrading, a CN underpass,
etc. could be all done in a later stage when road/rail traffic might
demand it. And perhaps a more pedestrian/bicycyle friendly King St.
would make a tunnel never necessary !
This lower cost experimental intensification venture would keep many
options open including the possibility of Aero-Rail -- if proven
successful in Malaysia -- to be used along major KWC streets (KW's
King, C's Hespler Rd., etc.) in the future.)
The same part of King St. could also develop into an experimental
SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION IDEAS CORRIDOR where there would exist a
particularly intense collaborative effort to encourage all existing
organizations and individuals operating/living on this corridor to
make sustainable innovation an essential part of their strategic
direction. If successful, it could be applied further along King in
both directions and to Hespler Rd.
CAUSE OF THE LRT INNOVATION DILEMA
Many of the LRT system IDEAS that I propose would be very
technologically "disruptive", e.g. the transformative displacement of
existing LRT vehicle and track designs. And such innovative
technological ideas are what is needed to make our LRT-based transit
World-class and thereby World attention grabbing! We would make our
research institutes, universities and hi-tech companies proud -- along
with our citizens of course.
I have been trying to communicate this technological innovation-
potential to the Region over the last two years. Specifically, besides
presentations to Regional Council, I have met with Ken Seiling on
numerous occasions, CAO Mike Murray, Mayors, staff, (their
consultants), ... . While some have shown great interest, key players
have shown little interest. Why?
The most powerful Regional politician (strongly backed by Carl Zehr,
Jim Wideman, Tom Galloway, Jean Haalboom, Sean Strickland, and Jane
Mitchell) has his own agenda that seems to focus on just
intensification, especially on King St. between the K & W downtowns.
Part of the why, here, seems to rest on Regional pride in the idea of
"intensification by LRT" that we "sold" to the Province as told to me
by Ken. Of course with intensification comes an increase in property
values -- some politicians apparently didn't realize this before the
municipal elections -- with related tax gains. (In these times of
growing road congestion, sky-rocketing gas prices and more lower
paying jobs, LRT ridership -- whose quantity & quality will affect
intensification -- must be given a much more urgent priority!).
But mostly I blame the lack of Regional Government of Waterloo
interest in proven innovative technological ideas -- and their dearth
in the Region's current RTI plan -- on the two most senior RTI project
engineering administrators whose natural innovation-averseness (as
exhibited also in their previous Regional positions) has been
intensified by a gross lack of previous transit system design expertise.
Don't they realize that these types of innovative technological ideas
are needed to increase the LRT plan's cost-effectiveness so that the
current Regional Council decision impasse (all 3 options have a
majority against) and a likely World-reaching LRT embarrassment can be
avoided.
To accomplish this, at least Director Nancy Button and Commissioner
Thomas Schmidt need to be removed from the RTI project and replaced by
more innovation-supporting and transit knowledgeable team members
drawn from Regional engineering & planning.
(CAO Mike Murray was alerted to these staff disabilities over 6 months
ago and took no action. Nice guys can sometimes avoid necessary tough
decisions -- especially when it involves a good friend or a degree
that is supposed to signify brilliance.)
Otherwise any LRT "charge" led by Button & Schmidt's current plan
would be towards an LRT dramatic failure resulting in an avoidable
degradation of the innovative technological climate of our great
Region -- and forestall the development of a Sustainable Innovation
Culture !
SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION
For Humanity to continue advancing, all significant innovation must be
holistically -- economically-socially-environmentally-... --
sustainable.
With our area's long-term success in mind, a SMART ultra-cost-
effective light rail transit (LRT) system could have a keystone role
in greatly advancing a Sustainably Innovative Culture for our Region
by modeling to ourselves and the World the integration of innovation
with sustainability -- economically, socially and environmentally.
Certainly appropriate government investment and involvement in
sustainably innovative technological ideas for smart infrastructure
can encourage not only heightened business enhancement but also the
enhancement of society and environment. SMART LRT could enhance
Waterloo Region in all 3 ways especially well -- if we are
innovativley open enough to consider it.
Our SI World-impact could be greater if Waterloo Region co-created a
collaborative network (Waterloo Sustainable Innovation District?) with
our also innovatively-unique neighbouring municipalities (G/W, S/P, B/
B & W/O) centred by Waterloo Region. Current business and academic
links with these municipal areas have set cooperative precedents --
and they all would benefit from the Waterloo global brand.
Besides increasing our SI potential, such an area would have almost
double the population -- from 535K to over 1M and growing quickly --
further increasing our SI World-impact. WSID could then better support
a future NHL team (Waterloo Innovators?), thus adding to our SI World-
impact (at least where hockey is popular).
And we could use LRT expansion to increase WSID'S cohesiveness. We
could integrate into our W-K-C LRT system a southern CN/GEXR line LRT
Cambridge to Guelph (interested) connection. As part of a possible
future GO-Train SW Ontario LRT system, we could use old rail corridors
and the side of active ones to interconnect with Brantford, Woodstock
& Stratford. As with Ottawa's O-Train LRT, New Jersey's River Line
LRT, etc., freight trains could run on the new track at night where
appropriate.
But WSID would still be a relatively small World Innovative HUB that
strives for greater recognition. Our other very strategic move could
be to exponentially evolve our Region's most distinguishing
historical and contemporary feature, the uniqueness of our innovative
potential.
With the realization in mind that all innovation must be sustainable,
perhaps a good first step in evolving our area's innovative potential
is to always -- where practical -- qualify innovation with
sustainable. For example, sustainable innovative potential sounds
fine, but Greater Waterloo Sustainable Innovation District would be
too long. (But GWSI could have the motto, "Sustainable Innovation --
economically-socially-environmentally- ... -- necessary for
Humanity's future advancement".)
Here's where the new LRT could play a big role. Besides the LRT system
itself modeling sustainable innovation, there could be an SI education
emphasis on the LRT vehicle -- using social media --that builds on the
technologies that the LRT is modeling.
And to build on former UW President David Johnston's Knowledge Capital
of Canada project, the Region, UW, etc. could promote us as the SI
Knowledge Capital of Canada to help give the LRT system's SI
educational emphasis more status and support. And as Governor General
he is also encouraging citizen community participation. Could ways be
found locally to honour David's wishes perhaps by catalyzing very
unique SI projects?
INNOVATIVE BACKGROUND (Motto: "Where there is a will, there is a way"
For over 45 years -- 37 in Waterloo Region -- I've served as an
analyst working on difficult and unusual problems -- often defining
them in innovative ways and helping to solve them using innovative
ideas. This has included work in the private sector, municipal
government, private consulting and voluntary community enhancement,
In these situations, an individual, company, government agency or even
an educational institution was not serving themselves &/or their
community in an optimal manner. This often meant that their current
way of operating was somewhat problematic or that I perceived a unique
opportunity for them to advantageously innovate.
Often the people involved presented the symptoms of "Willful
Blindness" (see book) where they tended to perilouslyignore obvious
problems including possible "engineering failures".
Given the potentially very positive impact that an LRT system could
have on at least our quality of life, innovative business climate,
etc. and given the very large amount of taxpayer money involved, I
decided 3 years ago to critically analyze, in a constructive manner,
the Rapid Transit Initiative project and the various versions of the
current LRT plan.
Gradually I sought out proven innovative technological ideas that
could be integrated so as to help overcome perceived weaknesses in the
developing LRT plan.
ADDENDUM
Smart technology definition (suggested): refers mostly to new complex
technological ideas -- in interrelated categories such as sensors,
software, energy conversion, energy storage, materials conversion,
materials creation, biomimicry, nanotechnology, etc. -- that enable
Humanity to develop a more Sustainably Innovative Culture if applied
sufficiently cost-effectively in a viable strategic direction.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110615/df3a3067/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ottawa-otrain01.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 102924 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110615/df3a3067/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110615/df3a3067/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 300px-Leander1.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20316 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110615/df3a3067/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110615/df3a3067/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Solar-Prius.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 36816 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110615/df3a3067/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110615/df3a3067/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Smart ultra-cost-effective LRT System.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 886909 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110615/df3a3067/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110615/df3a3067/attachment-0004.html>
More information about the All
mailing list