<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Michael,<div><br></div><div>Thank you for your response which has some very helpful information especially about the context of the Portland streetcar. I am continuously revising my 'LRT-GO-bus-etc.integrated' ideas and your thoughts -- among others -- are of immense help. Keep in mind that I am currently taking a 2 track (no pun intended) approach: 1) to "tweak" the current design/plan so as to make it a more optimal investment (lower cost, better performance, greater intensification [& other benefits], less disruption of existing transportation uses, ... ); 2) to -- with difficulty -- generate a more IDEAL LRT approach that could be used now (much less likely) to advantage as a better current design/plan <b>or</b> to help plan for the integration of a future upgrade to better meet increased capacity and speed demands.</div><div><br></div><div>Keep in mind also that what you are supporting so commendably has not yet been detailed.</div><div>So, your support is based partially on faith and not complete knowledge. It is to your credibility advantage to reflect this incompleteness of knowledge in your discourse. Perhaps you may want to reconsider leaping to hasty judgements such as, "second-rate cheap substitutes" -- although it appears to be fairly safe to say about BRT (even Doug Craig agrees with that assessment in that, if LRT, then he prefers that LRT include C in the first stage).</div><div><br></div><div>I support integrated multi-modal (LRT/bus/GO/automobile/ ... ) solutions to our developing transportation/environmental problems just as much as you. But have the confidence in your own impressive transit knowledge to use it both for seeing/foreseeing weaknesses in the Region's current (not-yet-detailed) proposal and join in creating ideas that will both (at least) "tweak" the current proposal and help ensure they get the details right (such as the King/Victoria HUB & CN rail crossing).</div><div><br></div><div>Your information & constructive thoughts will help influence some modifications in my ideas which I will subsequently send to you for comment and possible suggestions of improvements.</div><div><br></div><div>Again, thank you for your reply.</div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,</div><div>Robert</div><div><br></div><div>PS: 1. Here are some useful LRT websites that I referenced in a recent email to Lulu Lanteigne,</div><div><div> <a href="http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-08a.htm">http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-08a.htm</a> and <a href="http://hamiltonlightrail.com/">http://hamiltonlightrail.com/</a> . I'll</div><div>send you a copy of that email and others that you might find interesting;</div><div>2. Your Oct. 27 Record article, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 18px; font-weight: bold; ">Time is right for rail transit, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal; ">is an excellent</span></span></div><div>contribution to the community discussion. So I can get more specific information that will enable to better understand your statement, "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(64, 64, 72); font-family: Verdana; line-height: 18px; ">In the short term, buying buses brings more benefits than laying down the first tracks for light rail – and this is true anywhere.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; line-height: normal; ">", could you please send me some supporting references?</span></span></div><div><br></div></div><div><div><div><br></div><div>On 19-Nov-09, at 11:22 AM, Michael Druker wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi Robert,<br><br>A few points regarding the idea:<br>-The magnitude of development the Portland Streetcar has attracted would not be tenable here. Portland is a large city that put a streetcar through an old industrial area ripe for repurposing. Keep in mind that it is a short line. Here the total sum of development going on in the region is just not as large as in Portland, and so even if a streetcar attracts a large portion of it, it would be spread out along a much longer line, and it would just not amount to enough to justify a line purely for redevelopment purposes. With the traffic we're going to have within ten years or so, a streetcar would not be of much use for transit purposes.<br> -There isn't any evidence that your fast one-track route would serve the kinds of destinations and commuting patterns that exist in the Region.<br>-The outcry over taking away the Iron Horse Trail would dwarf anything we've heard so far about left turns on King and the Oktoberfest parade nonsense.<br> -This would be a complex system from a would-be rider's perspective.<br><br>On the other hand:<br>-The light rail is a simple, easy to understand service that would operate directly between the most important destinations/nodes.<br> -The iXpress is excellent evidence for the existence of strong demand for such infrequent stop service along the central transit corridor, which is exactly what the light rail would provide.<br>-Along that corridor, the stops are infrequent enough for the service to be rapid, but frequent enough to serve the important cross-corridors. This "spine" aspect of the plan is very important, since it would allow for the reorganization of bus routes into useful, high quality cross-corridor service. This requires that there be rapid transit along the spine.<br> -The projected costs are in line with other systems such as Edmonton's (adjusting for inflation).<br>-The costs are substantially lower than the costs of the road expansion that light rail would prevent the need for.<br> -Both the federal and provincial governments have expressed support, and will likely fund 1/3 and 2/3, respectively.<br><br>Whatever quibbles I may have with the light rail project, I think it is an excellent one, at the right time for the Region, and above all that, it is /going ahead/. Environmental assessments take forever, and this one has been done and approved by council, with a very good resulting system that has support from upper levels of government. I have no desire to see these plans replaced with second-rate cheap substitutes, whether it be a two-part system (which splits apart the speed and location that would work so well together in the light rail) or "bus rapid transit".<br> <br><br>Regards,<br><br>Michael Druker<br><br>P.S. I've previously made my case for the light rail plan here: <a href="http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/Editorials/article/619374">http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/Editorials/article/619374</a><br> <br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Robert Milligan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mill@continuum.org">mill@continuum.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div style="">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 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 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></div></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>