<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; ">Hi All,</span></i></span></font></div><div><br></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; ">As my research continues -- and my thoughts and ideas keep evolving (keep in mind, this is</span></i></span></font></div><div>not a Term Paper but something much more real and dynamic) -- I am also writing and enhancing my potential Record article and longer report. Included below is the next version of this process -- although there is much more unfinished material on my Worksheet.</div><div><br></div><div>Some of you have commented and made very helpful suggestions for improvement. Thank you again. For those whose time is very scarce during this Xmas Season, maybe you might be able to sneak in a little time to share your thoughts -- or maybe sometime after Xmas. Even call me at 519-696-2288.</div><div><br></div><div>I plan to meet with all of the area MPs and MPPs soon (Stephen Woodworth today). I am</div><div>continuing my conversations with key Regional & W-K-C staff & politicians.</div><div><br></div><div>I am especially concerned about the latest possibility for "solving" the CN tracks and Victoria & King station challenges -- a box (enclosed) tunnel, It will start north of Louisa St. going under Wellington St. (?) and the tracks then surfacing before Victoria. The underground station part -- with platforms under the streets & sidewalks, and with stairs & elevators -- will probably span from the strip mall entrance to halfway down the School of Rx building. </div><div><br></div><div>My box tunnel concerns include;</div><div>1) especially the very, very high cost; 2) the very long time disruption/detouring of King St. & its businesses during construction (imagine the traffic jams on Duke & Weber!); 3) the very costly and dangerous (for workers, even the community possibly depending on degree of volitility & toxicity) excavation of toxic soil -- at least in the area below King St. from Victoria to the tracks -- originating from both the former Kauffman (Rubber) Footwear (naptha gas dissolved in groundwater) and Uniroyal Chemical plants, the high cost of trucking it to a a special toxic materials dump in Windsor(?), and then the exposed toxic soil would very likely be "sealed" (likely very costly & dangerous in itself, e.g. <a href="http://www.usluk.com/nufins/_assets/library/Aquatard%20FWR%20Coshh.pdf">http://www.usluk.com/nufins/_assets/library/Aquatard%20FWR%20Coshh.pdf</a>) before building the walls and base of the tunnel) but; 4) (in the process they may cause) a possible rupture of the aquatard (thanks Lulu; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatard &</div><div><a href="http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/environment-book/groundwaterremediation.html">http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/environment-book/groundwaterremediation.html</a>) and possible contamination of deeper (mumicipal) aquafers (if they don't do proper -- but costly -- hydrogeological studies first); 5) flooding from exponentially increasing weather extremes (unanticipated by slow-to-change engineering standards); 6) a slightly inconvenient GO-Train interconnection (the GO-Train station would likely start just past King & extend towards Duke with the current plan); 7) the use of very costly land for a very small -- relative to possible future demand , even if it is moderate -- Hub defined by King-Duke-Victoria-tracks; 8) the tunnel is an ideal terrorist target -- that will become more obvious as these potential dangers increase over time in their likelihood; 9) no significant enhancement of UofW Kitchener Campus (c.f. what I will be proposing); 10) probably will make a future road tunnel difficult -- but maybe not.</div><div><br></div><div>My next email on this will likely include a drawing/map & description of my alternative HUB/'UofW Kit' proposal.</div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes to all and have a great holiday season,</div><div>Robert</div><div><br></div><div>PS: The (possible) Record article version will be in an easier-to-read style. Suggestions here would be most appreciated (I have 1 very good response on this already.)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Towards a Regional Light Rail Transit Plan A+: Rationale & Improvement Ideas for an Intelligent Transit System</b></div><div>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div><i style="font-size: 11px; ">Spirit of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's current thinking about a review of all programs and services -- the resulting cuts will be specified in the March Budget -- in light of an unprecedented deficit of nearly $25 billion: "We're not just going to cut everything -- that is unthinking. ... . </i><b style="font-size: 11px; "><i>We're setting our priorities.</i></b><i style="font-size: 11px; "> Because we are doing this it means <b>we won't be able to do some things and it may mean that we're going to do less of some things</b> ... . (We) will soon move to <b>public consultations</b> so that people can understand and weigh-in on the coming changes."</i> <i style="font-size: 10px; ">Waterloo Region Record, Oct. 28, 2009</i></div><div><br></div><div>The current great World economic and environmental crises are forcing governments to better regulate and plan the use of those scarce resources for which they are responsible. Of necessity they will be reviewing all large ambitious projects and rejecting or downgrading many.</div><div><br></div><div>Proposers of these large projects will need to seriously consider making project improvements so as to optimize meeting the anticipated new priorities of their governmental funders. Such a critical step will minimize the chances of project rejection or massive cut backs. This is especially necessary for large projects costing much more than originally anticipated. </div><div><br></div><div>Certainly the Canadian and Ontario governments want to do what is best for Waterloo Region -- perhaps Canada's leading innovative area. But while the vast majority of people in Waterloo Region likely support a Light Rail Transit (LRT) approach to our Rapid Transit Initiative (RTI) , a "noisy" minority has expressed doubts -- like with Climate Change -- about the success of the current LRT-based project design (let's call it "Plan A").</div><div><br></div><div>Majority local support would be no guarantee of Canadian and Ontario government funding. To better ensure that the government funding will be forthcoming -- especially with the looming massive Provincial and Federal deficits with no economic upturn in sight -- it might be both a good investment and a wise course of action for Waterloo Region to explore the possibility of greatly improving the cost-effectiveness of the RTI project.</div><div><br></div><div>To make best use of precious time and other resources, the RTI team could creatively build on the approved ideas in RTI's "Plan A" thereby transforming it into the better "Plan A+". But the Region -- like other areas in Ontario & Canada where major projects have financial approval pending -- needs to be given the financial security, time, and encouragement to "think outside of the box" to improve project cost-effectiveness. </div><div><br></div><div>The Provincial and Federal governments could induce the Waterloo Regional Government to take the time to do this RTI project enhancement by -- for example -- each putting their share of the (~$800M) RTI project Stage 1 funding into a "secure" account (with an agreed-upon automatic inflation adjusting mechanism). A 6 (or ?) month deadline to create th<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; ">e improved "Plan A+" could be negotoated.</span></span></div><div><br></div><div>Probably an approach such as the above could be broached successfully with the two higher levels of government. But first let's take a look at our W-K-C transportation situation and explore some ideas -- towards a possible "Plan A+" -- that might give indication of the potential for improving the cost-effectiveness of "Plan A".</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div><b>Everybody's Common Problem</b></div><div><br></div><div>What all individuals in our Region agree on is that we want to avoid the frequent traffic jams on our urban roads and expressways -- especially when we travel longer distances to work within W-K-C. But rush hours especially are times of growing road congestion as our population expands in our W-K-C urban periphery . </div><div><br></div><div>Significantly increasing the car-capacity of our crowded Regional roads -- or building by-passing highways (Conestoga Expressway or Hwy 24 Cambridge bypass) -- is either very expensive (Franklin Blvd.) or impossible (W-K-C's King St.). </div><div><br></div><div>Also look at the many millions of extra dollars the MTO is spending to expand the capacity of Highway 8 and the 401 because they serve as the main connecting corridor between the Conestoga Expressway and Hespler Road.</div><div><br></div></div><div>Further, most of us want to encourage greater urban core intensification to protect our cherished countryside from urban sprawl. But the Region's current LRT design -- that removes car lanes while not sufficiently decreasing car use -- may increase further the chronic jamming on intensification-targeted roads, e.g. King between William and Victoria. And that will discourage intensification efforts because many potentially new dwellers on King will still want to use their car but not on impaired roads .</div><div><br></div><div>Traffic jams also waste fuel, cause our vehicles to pollute the air more, undermine economic and social obligations, increases our blood pressure, ... -- generally making this Region a less attractive area to live in. Something must be done soon to minimize our accelerating urban traffic jams! </div><div><br></div><div>Our near-future green (electric, hydrogen, ...) cars will not be able to fly! Mini-monorail -- or some other new transit technology -- may be proven in 10 years or so. Foresight tells us that we must develop a much better transit solution very soon -- such as "Plan A+" might offer. Otherwise the resulting hyper-jams will cause a greater decrease in our quality of life. This will translate into property devaluation, the loss of talent and corporations, etc.</div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div><div><b>Inappropriate Weighting of LRT Objectives</b></div><div><br></div><div>A lot of money, time and effort has been invested in Waterloo Region's Rapid Transit Initiative thus far. After the Regional Government decided on a very costly 2-stage LRT ($800Mx2x2?) implementation with urban core re-development intensification as its main objective, there seems to be a delay in major funding from the Federal and Provincial Governments. Could there be a connection &/or an opportunity to improve the LRT project design?</div><div><br></div><div><b>The RTI project investment may not have maximized cost-effectiveness because the Region's "Plan A" proposal puts the cart before the horse</b>. The very heavy weighting by the Region of the intensification objective has been at the unnecessary expense of the other <b>interrelated </b>key objective of high ridership to decrease car use. As I will show later, this excessive weighting also hurts intensification itself -- thus putting project success at risk.</div><div><br></div><div>Further adding to RTI project risk is that <b>LRT intensification effects may not be sufficiently proven</b>. The need for intensification proving in our very unique W-K-C urban area is implied by the statements of a key member of the pro-LRT group TriTAG in a recent email to me.</div><div><br></div><div>He said, "The magnitude of development the Portland Streetcar (cited in the Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure's Places to Grow documentation, "Urban Case Studies: Intensification Corridors") has attracted would not be tenable here. Portland is a large city that put a (slow) streetcar through an old industrial area ripe for repurposing. ...". </div><div><br></div><div>Our LRT situation on King, etc. is further different from Portland in that ours would be faster, on a dedicated lane and make less frequent stops. Would this help or hinder intensification? </div><div>More generally, is the very high weighting of the intensification objective problematic? </div><div><br></div><div>The result of the current weighting of objectives is RTI's "Plan A" foundation is built on an uncertain intensification effect. Also this 2-stage design project proposes as our desperately-needed medium-scale people mover: a single corridor (mostly roads) LRT which is slightly-rapid (maybe slightly faster than the I-Express and much slower than a car), ultra-costly (from installing mostly along streets), and with insufficient capacity (limited speed & LRT length) !!!</div><div><br></div><div><div>An improved LRT design -- a "Plan A+" -- is essential. Its features must be such that it will have the attraction-power and capacity to serve the very large numbers of people who need to be persuaded to use transit more and their cars less. This hi-capacity LRT could run from a Northfield Dr. station in Waterloo to Cambridge's Ainslie St Terminal.</div><div><br></div><div><div>Hopefully the "Plan A+" (Stage 1) LRT intensification proving track along K/W's King St. will be successful -- the criteria for which we have not yet developed. Then, this success may also demonstrate that an LRT investment along an appropriate street can generate significant new municipal tax revenues. </div><div><br></div><div>The great implication here would be that Waterloo Region could better justify to their taxpayers our use of low interest and long term Bank of Canada loans to fund a larger share of the Stage 2 LRT intensification of Charles St., Ottawa St. and Hespler Rd.</div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold; ">The Need for a "Plan A+"</span></div><div><br></div><div>It is mostly high school, college and university students who use our bus-based Grand River Transit -- out of economic necessity. Few commuters use the bus primarily because it takes too long to get to work and because it is very uncomfortable compared to their cars.</div><div><br></div><div>So we need an LRT urban-core transit system which has high capacity, efficient routing, high speed, just-in-time bus-connections, and comfort . Such a designed LRT system will have significant appeal particularly for those who must commute a long distance along our urban core and for those who want to use the GO-Train to travel to work here or the GTA. And if we can maximize the quality and cache of both our LRT and interconnecting buses, then even more people will use our transit system.</div><div> </div><div>Likely a large majority in Waterloo Region would support a well-designed LRT-core system which includes minimizing the use of scarce road space. A minority -- some of whom describe themselves as "taxpayers" -- have expressed some worries. They mention what they view as the very high costs of the present LRT design, its likely lack of success and its disruptive effects on some businesses and communities. The worst of their fears are perhaps best captured by the circulating expressions "white elephant" and "boondoggle".</div><div><br></div><div><div>But doubts about the current design of our proposed Regional Light Rail Transit have been voiced by LRT friend and foe alike. More specifically, these concerns include: 1) the much higher initial and possible final costs; 2) likely insufficient ridership and intensification effect; 3) the LRT slowness and traffic disturbances along city streets. We might add the possible damaging of the Region's image as a very smart multi-dimensional innovator.</div><div><br></div><div>Those of us who strongly support an LRT but who have the above concerns about the current design -- "Plan A" -- are being "scared" by the "facts" of the current situation into acceptance of the current LRT design. This argument for acceptance is made in a circulated email by a local very successful digital entrepreneur and political influencer:</div><div><br></div><div>"... There is no Plan B. Either we choose this current transit system being offered to us with the Provincial and Federal governments already agreeing to pay 99% (likely not this much & with more uncertainty) of the costs for us or we reject it ... and have nothing but our current congested roads/expressway for decades. With the massive government deficits looming, yet lots of cash on the table right now for shovel-ready infrastructure if we don't act now there is not likely going to be any other alternatives or funding coming for decades." </div><div><br></div><div>Yes there is no radically different LRT "Plan B". The existing "Plan A" has excellent approved "diamond-in-the-rough" ideas for intensifying building re-development on key Regional roads. To minimize financial and reputational risk, the certainty of the very costly intensification-by-LRT process should be proven in Stage 1 before being fully implemented in a Stage 2. Generally the above serious concerns about "Plan A" could be addressed via enhancement and addition to its ideas so as to formulate a more viable "Plan A+".</div><div><br></div><div>We are in a time of scarce monetary and other resources especially in relation to solving our great environmental crises of atmosphere, hydrosphere and geosphere. All major (environmental, etc.) projects, of necessity, must be given a tough second look before precious government funding proceeds. This will help ensure that objectives are weighted appropriately and the means proposed for achieving them are sufficiently cost effective.</div><div><div><br></div></div><div><div>We are an innovation-exemplar Region to the World and must act accordingly, especially in any large project that can model Climate stabilizing solutions. But knowing of the potential viability of a better "Plan A+" -- as the below New Ideas suggest -- yet still then taking the Provincial and Federal money and plowing ahead with an insufficiently cost effective Plan A would be environmentally, socially and economically unbecoming (or worse).</div><div><br></div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>The proposed "Plan A+" could not only include proving the best ideas of "Plan A", but use leading-edge innovative ideas to reduce cost and improve performance. Such innovations at least could embody an Intelligent Transit System, with Intelligent Light Rail Transit (I-LRT) as its core sub-system. (See <a href="http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/engineering/its/strategy.shtml)">http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/engineering/its/strategy.shtml)</a></div><div><br></div><div>The "Plan A+" approach will hopefully/likely shift us from a very costly misstep to Transit Innovation Exemplars -- of which all citizens and "taxpayers" can be proud. And this would be more in the Waterloo and Golden Triangle tradition of collaborative creative excellence. What a worthy legacy to leave future generations!</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div><b>New Ideas for "Plan A+"</b></div><div><br></div><div>It probably would cost less than $800M in its Stage 1 if we used/shared the largely under-utilized rail corridor -- its land, rails and bridges, ... -- mostly owned by the Region, CN, CP and Cambridge, e.g. a track sharing arrangement with CP to use their track from Fountain St. to Hespler Rd. during the morning and evening rush hours.</div><div><br></div><div>This implies the use of LRT's that can run on standard gauge track as is done in many places including the River Line from Camden to Trenton NJ, which shares track with heavy freight that mostly runs at night. The O-Train in Ottawa also shares the track with heavy freight. (See <a href="http://www.riverline.com/">http://www.riverline.com/</a> & <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_O-Train)">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_O-Train)</a></div></div><div><br></div><div><div>The new design could have characteristics of an Intelligent LRT (I-LRT) System by using a GPS computer controller that:</div><div>1) makes possible the use of the CN & CP innovation to increase the capacity of a 1-track mainline by building a longer side-track and regulating that train's speed (so as to arrive at the cross-back switch "just" as the other train passes);</div><div>2) also enables further 1-track by-passing using 2 tracks at stations; </div><div>3) makes possible better "just-in-time" connections with cross-linking buses.</div><div><br></div></div><div>The separate high-capacity 1-track rail corridor would indirectly -- by drawing significant numbers of drivers from their cars all along the W-K-C urban corridor -- contribute towards less congested, quieter and generally more pleasant Regional roads like K/W 's King Street.</div><div>Hespler Rd. will probably show no obvious traffic improvement until an eastern Highway 24 bypass is built.</div><div><br></div><div>Because of the uncertain intensification effect of running a track(s) along specified Regional roads such as K/W's King, Charles & Ottawa Sts. and Cambridge's Hespler Rd. -- and at a very, very high cost -- the 1st stage of "Plan A+" should include a 1-track intensity-proving section (King between William & Victoria) that ties into the Hi-Capacity LRT rail corridor.</div><div> </div><div>The existing road space on King could be designed for smoother traffic flow as follows: </div><div>1 LRT track in the middle "lane", 2 extra-wide traffic lanes (so car breakdowns can be bypassed), bus stop "turn in spaces" after intersections, and separate left turning lanes. </div><div><br></div><div>The fewer cars and smoother flow on King St. would help make it more attractive for (green?) re-development intensification. </div><div><br></div><div>With just one track on King St., space for 2 additional "car" lanes could be restored if excessive traffic jamming occurred because of the removal 2 of 4 lanes. If all goes well, then the same approach could be continued elsewhere even north on King possibly as far as the Conestoga Mall but skirting around the downtown via Caroline and Bridgeport.</div><div><br></div><div>Two separate but complementary 1-track LRT corridors -- crossovers at stations and between some stations -- where one is an 'intensifying road corridor' and the other a 'higher speed/capacity rail corridor' -- also provides insurance against an accidents on 1 corridor shutting down the whole system. If it was a 2-track 1-corridor system, likely an accident on 1 track would affect the operability of the other.</div><div><br></div><div>Other major ideas will be separately detailed including the use of 2 maps (comparitive</div><div>Plan A & A+ routings, and the 'Kitchener Multimodal Hub'/'Expanded UofW Kit. Campus'),</div><div>favoured LRT pictures, and semi-detailed descriptions.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>Conclusions</b></div><div><br></div><div>W-K-C forms a broad urban corridor whose wide core we wish to intensify. A keystone for successful development intensification of the W-K-C urban core is to maintain fast people movement along it by a speedy/hi-capacity Intelligent Light Rail Transit (I-LRT) that runs off-road with 1-track along our under-utilized rail corridors. </div><div><br></div><div>Intensified re-development along and near selected Regional roads in our urban cores could occur more directly as the other (interconnected) 1-track I-LRT operated along the chosen Regional roads.</div><div><br></div><div>With a balanced emphasis on the 2 most important interrelated LRT objectives of 'redevelopment intensification' and 'high ridership to decrease car use'. then "Plan A+" could -- partly as suggested here but further enhanced by staff, consultants, and other citizens --likely generate much more LRT cost -effectiveness than the current approved "Plan A".</div><div><br></div><div><div>We need to play our part in helping both our Provincial and Federal Government's in adapting to the new reality. This reality is one of less government money for project funding generally and of a very great need to fund especially environmental sustainability (ES) projects. </div><div><br></div><div>Yes, ES projects will -- of survival-necessity -- have a higher priority. But we must better show -- in a provable manner -- how our ES projects are such. And we must also demonstrate an ability to enhance all proposed projects so that they are much more cost-effective, so that we do more with less, so that we become Collaborative Synergistic Innovators.</div><div><br></div></div></body></html>