<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: CREW Aerobus/Caterina position</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>I will not be advocating for the aerobus. We have two votes already (Susan and Carol) that don’t call for any changes on our motion so we are fine.<BR>
<BR>
John<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 11-04-29 9:56 AM, "Kevin Thomason" <<a href="kevinthomason@mac.com">kevinthomason@mac.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>John,<BR>
<BR>
I'm not sure how you are planning to follow-up with Caterina but Aerobus certainly isn't compatible with LRT and certainly isn't any sort of system or new technology that I would be comfortable advocating for in any way. I certainly don't think it is what was intended by the item 4) in our motion.<BR>
<BR>
While I appreciate the effort Derek Satnik is trying to put into flogging the Aerobus system on behalf of the manufacturer, it is a glorified ski-lift cable car system that has never been implemented as a public transit system anywhere successfully in the world despite decades of trying to sell it to whoever they can get to listen.<BR>
<BR>
Frankly, it looks scary to me to be hung up high like that swinging from cables. I know many people who can't ride cable cars at ski resorts or tourist attractions (mountaintop restaurants) because of their fear of heights. <BR>
<BR>
I'm not sure what they are thinking proposing a test system going from Laurier to U of W for $50 million - few people need to travel between universities - you either attend one or the other (even Catherine expresses concerns about lack of ridership below) and I have no idea how they state if it fails the trial Aerobus system (running east-west) could be integrated into the LRT (running north-south) in the future.<BR>
<BR>
As for manufacturing it here - it could take years and millions of dollars just to set-up a factory and start to build prototypes, train and hire all the staff, etc. - let alone getting around to actually building the transit system we need and getting it running successfully We need proven technology and face it - Waterloo will never be a global transit-vehicle manufacturing mecca - other global cities already specialize in this intensely competitive industry. We are best to stick to high tech, financial services, education and other things we already excel at.<BR>
<BR>
Let me know your thoughts, if you are planning any sort of response, etc. I appreciate the effort CREW as put into things and their recognition that we need improved public rapid transit in our Region if we are to succeed in the future. I don't want to get into a shouting war between local community groups though and I wouldn't want to see too many distractions from the LRT that needs to be the focus for our community. <BR>
<BR>
We need proven, cost effective, reliable rapid transit solutions that have been so successful in so many cities around the world be it North America, Europe, South America or Asia - not pie-in-the-sky dreaming of things that for many good reasons have never been done to date.<BR>
<BR>
Kevin.<BR>
<BR>
--------------------------<BR>
<BR>
On 2011-04-28, at 9:53 PM, Caterina Lindman wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Hi everyone. I'm sorry I missed the meeting on Wednesday. It sounds like you had an interesting discussion about the transit proposals that the Region is considering. CREW (Community Renewable Energy of Waterloo) have issued a press release <<a href="http://www.crewzone.ca/pubs/release_CREW_transit_study_2011-03-10.pdf">http://www.crewzone.ca/pubs/release_CREW_transit_study_2011-03-10.pdf</a>> and a research paper <<a href="http://www.crewzone.ca/pubs/rpt_CREW_Transit_Options_2011-03-10.pdf">http://www.crewzone.ca/pubs/rpt_CREW_Transit_Options_2011-03-10.pdf</a>> that I found helpful and inspiring. The research paper is an easy-to-read comparison of different transit options. The conclusion of their study is that Aerorail would be the best option because it can be implemented at a relatively low cost, without having to disrupt as much of the current infrastructure.<BR>
<BR>
I can support the motion you have presented, if in item 4), by new technologies, we include above-grade suspension rails, ie Aerobus or Aerorail. <BR>
<BR>
CREW's recommendation is to build an Aerorail pilot project from Laurier to University of Waterloo to R&T Park, at the cost of approximately $50 M. My experience with the I-express is that hardly anyone gets on or off at R&T park, so the pilot should perhaps include McCormick arena as well to serve a lot of student transportation needs. <BR>
<BR>
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:41 AM, John Jackson <<a href="jjackson@web.ca">jjackson@web.ca</a>> wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Last night at the GREN meeting we discussed what position GREN should take on the current light rail transit proposal before Waterloo Regional Council. The Council will be making a decision on June 15 and will be holding public input sessions to hear from delegations prior to that.<BR>
<BR>
After an hour of discussion, the following motion was made as a position that we should take to Regional Council:<BR>
GREN Motion: 1) Urge Region to adopt a combination of L9 & L3 (the administration’s recommendation to council). [this means that they commit now to having a light rail train system all the way from St. Jacob’s farmers market to the Ainslie Street bus terminal in Cambridge (L9), but that they begin by having rail only from St. Jacob’s farmers market to Fairview Mall and Bus rapid transit to Cambridge (L3); 2) Urge Region to now commit to and immediately begin rapidly implementing a reformed bus system throughout the three communities, with new Express Bus Routes and new local bus route system as shown on page 10 of their “Connecting to the Future” document; 3) integrate this with a reassessment of the road system needs given that the bus and rail system is dramatically improved; 4) while the details of the LRT system are being developed over the next two years, that they continue to explore new technologies; and 5) ensure that planning policies are implemented (as described in the Region’s new official plan) that will support the transit system.<BR>
<BR>
This motion was passed, but was not passed unanimously. Therefore, we decided to ask our paid-up GREN members who were not present last night to vote on the motion to bring us to a decision.<BR>
<BR>
Please send me your vote by Sunday May 1. I have also attached the Region’s information handout that explains L9, L3 and has the page 10 map referred to in the motion.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks for your immediate attention to this matter.<BR>
<BR>
John<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
-- <BR>
John Jackson<BR>
17 Major Street<BR>
Kitchener, Ontario N2H 4R1<BR>
519-744-7503<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>