<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span></span><div><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="width: 799px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: auto; position: relative; font-family: Georgia, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><center></center></div></span></blockquote><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><b><br></b></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size: 14px; "><b>LRT in relation to bicycle trails in City of Waterloo, esp. Iron Horse Trail</b></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-weight: bold; "><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; ">Context: I am also very interested in optimizing the usefulness of citizens in regards to their effective participation in the decision making process of public and private organizations -- to the degree that citizens can make a helpful contribution. (Currently there are too many decision-making processes that greatly discourage the giving of "free" potentially useful advice by citizens including the bubble of retired citizens, e.g. appearing before councils who say nothing in response to a presentation based on much thoughtful research.) One might even be so bold to say that member of the "1%" tend to hoard the few existing "official" participation opportunities. [I've been fortunate to have been a member of 1 school board advisory committee (AC), 1 Regional AC, 1 Township AC, 1 Town AC, ,,, --- but rejected for the Region's Environmental AC likely because of 1 blackball.]</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">As a long-time very involved citizen of this Region, I am most interested in the optimal design and on-going redesign of public transportation spaces -- especially re: efficiency, cost-effectiveness, safety, aesthetics, health effects, ... . </span></div></div><div><br></div><div>Currently, I am exploring with various interested parties how the Iron Horse Trail's (IHT) total space might better serve its present (walker/jogger, cyclist) use and possibly accommodate an LRT. This is at least for purposes of optimally ensuring that suggestions that I am making </div><div>-- to better realize the current approved LRT plan's performance & cost objectives -- are viable as they relate to the IHT.</div><div><br></div><div>The IHT is one of the Region's most used trails. Its growing popularity will likely soon require a re-design and width-expansion of the trail to safely allow for continued efficient and safe use. This would probably mean separating walkers from cyclists as they are now doing on some Vancouver Trails.</div><div><br></div><div>We need to better keep our future municipal transportation development options open. Therefore, provision should be considered in any IHT re-design/alteration to accommodate a possible future sharing of the trail space for as many as 2 LRT tracks. </div><div><br></div><div>This LRT enhancement could happen sooner (likely 1 track initially) rather than later if Regional politicians realize that King St between K-W downtowns can be much better intensified (yet be cheaper, safer, ... ) by a slower moving bi-directional 1-track LRT (adjacent to west-side curb) that has 3 peak period stops (w. passing tracks) and uses all the current bus stops in non-peak periods (no supplementary buses requ'd).</div><div><br></div><div>This above paragraph is best interpreted by keeping in mind that most LRT intensification occurs closer to stops/stations. Therefore, 3 LRT stops during peak periods combined with 8 LRT stops during non-peak periods would intensify much more than the current proposed approach (1 LRT stop supplemented with buses) . And to avoid this more frequent-stopping corridor from being a speed (or accident) bottleneck for Go-Train or longer distance (W/K, W/C, K/C) commuters generally, an IHT "commuter connector" LRT track design complement is a relatively inexpensive solution.</div><div><br></div><div>More specifically, a complementary IHT "commuter connector" -- from downtown Waterloo (Caroline St,) to the K HUB -- would be faster, safer, higher-capacity, cheaper (@ 1/10th cost per km.), ... than any form of LRT along King St.. Likely, the LRT tracks would likely run along the right-hand-side of the IHT on traveling from W to K. (At Glasgow it would probably cross to the other side of the trail. Safety features could include a fence separator, unique trail blocking arms & warning lights at least at Glasgow crossover, ... ).</div><div><br></div><div>If they agree with my analysis & suggestions, then probably the Region would have to acquire some parts of property along the IHT including innovative arrangements with Sun Life Financial (both adjacent parking lots). </div><div><br></div><div>Especially for our Tri-City intensifying-cores, the context here is a near future where environmental (plus related social & economic) necessities will require higher capacity but less energy-demanding (more sustainable) transportation systems. (Note: sustainable energy generation has high costs, so let's minimize our need for it -- and all forms of energy.)</div><div><br></div><div>And this will have to be achieved with much fewer public financial resources available due to chronic flat economies. Such a system would be best realized by more corridors that robustly support pedestrians &/or cyclists &/or LRT while -- where space is shared -- leaving sufficient space for cars and trucks to move freely.</div><div><br></div><div>Here openness and creativity in our collaborative thinking would be a great advantage. I look forward to hearing any thoughts that you might have on these LRT related matters.</div><div><br></div><div>Note: All statements here about the LRT are based on using leading-edge LRT vehicle hybrid propulsion involving a superior but proven German lithium-metal polymer battery with at least Ford's in-production V-10 hydrogen combustion engine. While this will increase LRT vehicle costs, it will -- combined with hydrogen production from waste-source methane and electricity from solar cell banks over our terminals and maintenance facility -- compensate by saving on energy operating costs (plus give the LRT energy security). Such energy savings will greatly increase with time. More to the key point, the previous means that we can also subtract one quarter of the LRT system's capital costs by not having to electrify the LRT route (thus also avoiding many ugly wires and transformers).</div><div><br></div><div><div>Not unrelated, I am heartened to hear that the City of Waterloo is again leading the way environmentally by giving a greater priority to more and safer cycling routes.</div><div><br></div></div></div><br></div></div></div></body></html>