<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Paul,<div><br></div><div>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)<br><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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). </div><div><br></div><div>The University of Waterloo models to all the Region and beyond the keystone values of Innovation & Collaboration. "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; ">In the next decade, the university is committed to building a better future for Canada and the world by championing <b>innovation and collaboration</b> to create solutions relevant to the needs of today and tomorrow.</span>"</div><div><a href="http://www.uwaterloo.ca/aboutuw/">http://www.uwaterloo.ca/aboutuw/</a></div><div><br></div><div>The practice of many Regional Councillors -- and some staff -- seem to imply contrary values. </div><div><br></div><div>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 ... !)</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Such unproductive values and actions surely will diminish our Region's Pioneering Innovation image around the World.</div><div><br></div><div>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.) </div><div><br></div><div>(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!) </div><div><br></div><div>In a July 2010 letter the Record, Claudette detailed many of these mal-treatments by the Region (and Province), <a href="http://www.therecord.com/opinion/letters/article/296207--cambridge-deserves-a-fair-share">http://www.therecord.com/opinion/letters/article/296207--cambridge-deserves-a-fair-share</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>As I end this email, let me say that my LRT research -- involving mostly proven transit and</div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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 !</div><div><br></div><div>My next LRT Report will detail such an approach -- and I would hope for feedback from you on the draft.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Robert</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>PS: </div><div><br></div><div>!, The pro-LRT group is meeting in dowmtowm Waterloo 6;30 tonight at the restaurant, </div><div><a href="http://www.wholelotagelata.com/" style="text-decoration: none; ">Whole Lot-A Gelata</a> near (south of) Wordsworth Bookstore.</div><div><br></div><div>2. My response to Jane Mitchell's response to me changing her last name to Brewer in my comment about her excellent constructive criticism towards greater Regional harmony is as follows:</div><div><br></div><div>I've just apologized to Jane Brewer -- and will send out a corrected email soon. Sorry to not include you. Also, I thought I already asked and answered the question, "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; ">Ask yourself why in the world the rest of the Region would put down Cambridge.</span>" (Your hollow sarcasm contributes little to a very serious subject -- and please try not to abuse the Cinderella story again so that I and other disappointed Regional citizens can safely recover our positive view of you as a Regional Councillor. The key is creative harmonization of difference -- a subject that organist Seiling SHOULD be an expert on c.f. dissonance.) </div><div><div><div><br></div><div>But let me ask you a question. Why would many RTI staff and most Regional Councillors decide to not extend the LRT to Cambridge (Ainslie Terminal) when it can be done -- with a little innovation modeled on other cities like Ottawa's O-train -- for much less ($5M/km x 30 km = $150M plus $141M [likely more than 1/2 this cost if single track] for 3km along KW's King St. [$1.55B/33 km = $47M/km; 3km x $47M/km = $141M]) IF the rail right-of-way is used as the LRT's truly rapid backbone? We could afford to include the Charles/Ottawa intensification loop for approx. 1/2 x 4km x $47M/km = $94M.</div><div><br></div><div>This suggests additional ways to stage the future up-grading of the LRT system to the great advantage of Canadian taxpayers and of LRT users (and intensification developers).</div><div><br></div><div>And I sincerely hope you can appreciate how very expensive/km the Regional LRT Plan is. "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 18px; font-style: italic; line-height: 22px; ">Because it uses an existing rail line, it cost only about $4 million (2001 dollars) per kilometer to set up this 8km line, including the cost of track upgrades, signaling, simple stations, and three Bombardier Talent diesel light rail vehicles. ... </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 18px; font-style: italic; line-height: 22px; ">He (</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 18px; font-style: italic; line-height: 22px; ">Mayor Chiarelli</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 18px; font-style: italic; line-height: 22px; ">) marvelled at the low cost of DLRT on existing rail lines, ... .</span>"</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 18px; font-style: italic; line-height: 22px; "></span></div><div><br></div><div>Also the greater extended length, shorter routing, no LRT/BRT transfer, the greater speed and capacity, ... would enable the LRT to significantly attract middle-class drivers from their cars -- to enable Ken & staff to go beyond pretense on this. By not including Cambridge, Regional Councillors would be shooting the LRT project "in the foot". Now that is not what any reasonable citizen would call smart, Jane MIITCHELL! I can appreciate rings on fingers but not in noses tied to Ken's rope!</div><div><br></div></div></div><div><br></div><div>3. Here is a copy of a year-old RT Report of mine:</div><div><br></div><div><div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "><div><div><b>World-class Pioneering Innovation: Key to light rail transit success</b></div><div><b><p class="MsoNormal" style="display: inline !important; "><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; "><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 9px; "><br></span></span></span></p></b></div><div><b><p class="MsoNormal" style="display: inline !important; "><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; "><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 9px; ">Innovator's Credo, </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px; ">“Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.</span><span style="font-size: 10px; "> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px; ">Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.</span><span style="font-size: 10px; "> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px; ">Begin it now.” <b>Goethe</b>,</span> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times; font-size: 9px; "><a href="http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/251-300/article281_body.htm">http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/251-300/article281_body.htm</a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p></b></div></div></span></b></div><div><div><div><div><br></div><div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>[Note: the $2B+ cost {2011 dollars} is for when Cambridge finally gets its LRT in 2035 under the Region's current plan.]</div><div><br></div><div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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!! </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div><div><div>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! </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div></div><div>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!</div><div><br></div></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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." <a href="http://www.masstransitmag.com/print/Mass-Transit/Unique-Rail/1$2192">http://www.masstransitmag.com/print/Mass-Transit/Unique-Rail/1$2192</a></div><div><br></div></div></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>This insufficient success will be indicated in part by few car commuters switching to an LRT </div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>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.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div><div>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".</div><div> </div></div><div>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! </div><div><br></div><div>The design challenges -- limited by time and funding constraints -- include how to optimally:</div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div><div>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!</div><div><br></div></div><div><div>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!</div><div> </div></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>Design enhancement ideas</b></div><div><br></div></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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, <a href="http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/29/san-jose-plots-a-renewal-of-its-struggling-light-rail-network/">http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/29/san-jose-plots-a-renewal-of-its-struggling-light-rail-network/</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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 </div><div>north side of the CN/Via tracks. The south side would additionally interconnect the 2 LRT</div><div>corridors and the GO/VIA trains. (Sketch has been developed)</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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</div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><div>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, <a href="http://www.proterraonline.com/transit.asp">http://www.proterraonline.com/transit.asp</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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",</div><div><a href="http://hamiltonlightrail.com/article/coc_resolution_light_rail_transit_made_in_hamilton/">http://hamiltonlightrail.com/article/coc_resolution_light_rail_transit_made_in_hamilton/</a>. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "><div>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.</div><div><br></div></span></b></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div>Robert Milligan, BSc(Math-Physics), is a former business systems analyst and environmental</div><div>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. </div><div>February 27, 2010 @New Dundee</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></body></html>