[All] The Region's LRT "White Elephant" Plan and WR's Innovative Climate
Robert Milligan
mill at continuum.org
Fri May 27 02:20:27 EDT 2011
David,
From "Charge of the Light (Rail Transit) Brigade":
Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"At a very critical time when humanity must use relatively scarce
resources to sustainablize our way of Life (so as to fundamentally
protect the planet), the Region's very non-innovative proposal would
use excessive resources (money and materials) to create a partial LRT-
based system that would ill-benefit our local economy, our community
or our environment -- and be a great example of a World Innovative HUB
dramatically failing to use proven technological innovations to
succeed." RM in a recent email
Thanks for writing your op-ed article, "We elect mayors to make
decisions", on LRT for our Region and contributing to the debate --
even though it has some significant representations of reality that
are true for some but not for others, e.g. the paragraph that
includes, "... or are debating the experts with mis-information or
emotional rhetoric". Not unrelated, see below comments about "experts"
Schmidt & Button.
I agree with you that LRT is the best solution for our Region's
future. But did you not know that 95% of the candidates in the last
municipal election were against the current LRT plan? Likely most of
these candidates -- and many more citizens (50%+?) -- would support a
more cost-effective LRT plan!
Fortunately -- unlike the bus and road options -- an LRT system has
great potential to incorporate proven transportation and renewable
energy technologies -- and thereby change our LRT prospects. Let me
illustrate.
My latest LRT design proposal includes: 1) new types of staging with
the track system design (e.g. build the full length then upgrade with
increased demand), 2) Intelligent Transportation System technology to
allow safe use of single-track bridges [http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/engineering/its/strategy.shtml
], etc ;
3) if necessary initially, a modular LRT propulsion system design
(possibly beginning with diesel-electric) that could easily
incorporate new propulsion techologies as they are proven and become
available (e.g. DBM's "Kolibri" Lithium-Metal Polymer [Vanadium Oxide
Cathode] Battery
[http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?5538-DBM-s-Lithium-Metal-Polymer-Battery
] combined with a hydrogen combustion engine [see Ford shuttle bus
with V-10 engine http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=20332
] & generator to recharge battery, heat & cool possibly complemented
with solar cells on roof); 4) an experimental (pedestrian/cyclist
friendly) initial intensification-loop along KW's King St including 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
].
Note: The above 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 traveling time and even intensification-loop use would be 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 -- a more pedestrian/
bicycyle friendly King St. could make a tunnel unnecessary ever! (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'a
King, C's Hespler Rd., etc.) in the future.)
Especially in our Region, an under-utilized North-South rail corridor,
gives us a great opportunity to dramatically reduce capital costs and
greatly increase performance. The approaches taken to track systems
(at least) with Ottawa's O-Train LRT and Calgary's C-Train LRT provide
a source of good innovative ideas.
So as to minimize changes to the the Region's current plan, my
suggested track system design IDEAS would build on their plan in a
minimalist manner (requiring a some Environmental Assessment
supplementation). However, the net result would be a much less costly
track system, better performing LRT vehicles (faster along a shorter
[KW to C] route, safer since mostly off-road , longer peak period
linked vehicles possible, ...) with Cambridge necessarily included to
greatly increase participation by hi-tech sector KW/Cambridge commuters.
Many of the leading-edge 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 need 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, 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, 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 administers whose natural innovation-averseness (as
exhibited in their previous Regional positions) has been intensified
by a gross lack of previous transit system design expertise. 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 a great
degradation of the innovative technological climate of our great Region.
Further, Council needs to explain our unusual predicament to the
Province and Feds as a reason for requesting more time (6 months) to
enhance our LRT plan with Innovative Technological Ideas to ensure
optimal use of taxpayer investment funds.
In summary, if we reject the concept of LRT or if we implement the
current LRT plan, our Region's future (like Cambridge without Smart
LRT) will be greatly downgraded. As with RIM, only heightened
innovation can ensure a bright future.
I wrote the below article, World-class Pioneering Innovation: Key to
light rail transit success about a year ago (more recent info in its
ADDENDUM). You might find it interesting.
(There are some additional thoughts about LRT on my election website, www.RobertMilligan.org
, in the "Jeff Outhit" section.)
Best regards,
Robert
PS: At Planning & Works Committee Jan 25, 2011:
1. Commissioner of Engineering+ Thomas Schmidt presented an "Overview
of Major (Transportation and Transit) Issues and Priorities"
including the RTI's "Completion of EA (means the detailed routing
design is now completed!!), Procurement Process, & Construction",
http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/8ef02c0fded0c82a85256e590071a3ce/AE8AB16086B55454852578260050CA40/$file/TSCHMIDT.pdf?openelement
2. RTI Director Nancy Button's new persuasive approach for Regional
Councilors:
http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/8ef02c0fded0c82a85256e590071a3ce/AE8AB16086B55454852578260050CA40/$file/NBUTTON.pdf?openelement
At Planning & Works Committee Jan 11, 2011:
1. Ret'd Prof John Shortreed's North & South Innovation Corridors
context for his beloved buses-only view (c.f. my K-W Smart IDEAS
Corridor, Galt Smart IDEAS Village & Cambridge Smart IDEAS Corridor
[on Hespler Rd.]), http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/8ef02c0fded0c82a85256e590071a3ce/93B1745A0E7245A0852578180050596C/$file/JSHORTREED.pdf?openelement
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
ADDENDUM
1. Some thoughts on Ken Seiling's LRT role:
Ken has too much influence over staff (perhaps his predecessors had
too little but Ken has overshot the mark) and other councillors
(Cambridge partially excepted) yet does not have the open-mindedness
to criticism and creativity required of leaders of potentially leading-
edge organizations. This is compounded by his lack of scientific &
technological knowledge necessary for sufficient understanding of
increasingly complex issues -- most notably the RTI project.
Thus while he is too staff forcing he is also too staff dependent in a
situation where the major engineering RTI team leaders not only have
an insufficient LRT/BRT formal civil engineering background but also
are by-nature innovation averse (I know from many discussion with both
in their previous positions where they did have adequate engineering
preparation -- they also seemed to suffer from "hardening of the
categories).
This situation situation is not a sound basis for good decisions and
judgements on Ken's part. But I do appreciate his support for the
concept of an LRT.
2. Response to WR Record Feb 22 letter, "Cambridge was failing" by
Paul Cyr
(http://www.therecord.com/opinion/letters/article/489645--cambridge-failed
)
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20110527/dc1ea6c6/attachment.html>
More information about the All
mailing list