<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Michael.<div><br></div><div>Today I learned that the railways are using the idea of <b>longer</b> rail bypasses thus enabling trains so as to pass each other at higher speeds on 1-track lines & thus use the 1-track more efficiently & effectively!! Besides this idea, I also suggested bypasses at Stations as LRT's</div><div>arrive simultaneously. In each case computer/GPS control systems are/'would be' used.</div><div><br></div><div>Again, my ideal design is a fast 1-track system from Northfield Dr. to each of the 401 &</div><div>'CP Rail line' "ends" of Hespler Rd. Approximately, this would use the Region's track, Caroline St., the Iron Horse Trail, the 'CN to CP' spur-line, new track along the CP right-or-way, unused CP track (from Compounding Factory on Eagle to 401), new track to Hespler Rd, rarely used CN track to Hespler.</div><div><br></div><div>Also, as part of my ideal design, I am suggesting 2 slower 2-track systems that like in </div><div>Portland use the regular roadway & have frequent stops for maximum building intensification</div><div>effect: 1) Starting at Stirling, along Charles to CN tracks HUB then over to King & upto WLU;</div><div>2) Hespler Rd. from 401 to CP rail line. </div><div><br></div><div>Because of the very rapid success of the Portland Streetcar in terms at least of ridership &</div><div>building intensification, I can see the Region & W-K-C being able to justify greater funding</div><div>by them (using cheap Bank of Canada loans?) now for the slower streetcar systems. With</div><div>F & P funding mostly for the faster LRT system, I consider my ideal much-lower-per-kilometer-costing system <b>financially feasible NOW!</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>I would very much appreciate constructive comments beyond, "I support the LRT design</b></div><div><b>as is now proposed by the Region." <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; ">Though to me, this is somewhat better than the other easy response, "I support a bus."</span></b></div><div><br></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; ">Best wishes,</span></b></div><div>Robert</div><div><br></div><div>PS:</div><div>1. My ideal design avoids a very costly tunnel/station at King & Victoria, using the existing</div><div>tunnel on the Iron Horse trail under the CN line. I also used the King St. vehicle bridge to cross the Speed River (instead of a 3 rail-line bridge);</div><div>2) My more "traditional" design includes a 90+ degree flyover over the CN tracks into a</div><div>King/Joseph HUB by the CN tracks & spur-line with 2 tracks going down Joseph & Church Sts. to Charles at Benton via the existing bus terminal. Also it would link into the spur-line</div><div>at the HUB;</div><div>3. I will circulate my article to you in a week or 2 where my ideas will be clearer.</div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><br></div></body></html>