Light Rail Transit

[UrbanWaterloo]

Light Rail Transit
Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge
http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/
Funding: CAN $265mil; ONT $300mil; ROW $235mil
Facebook Group: Region of Waterloo Rapid Transit Initiative (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kitchener-ON/Region-of-Waterloo-Rapid-Transit-Initiative/7903622958?ref=mf)
Facebook Group: I Support Light Rail Transit in the Region of Waterloo (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=81680629050)
Short List of Technology and Route Design Alternatives (http://transitea.region.waterloo.on.ca/pdfs/DRAFT_PCC_1_Phase_2_Info_Package_compressed.pdf)

Rapid Transit Route Map - March 16, 2012 (http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/maps.html)

http://wonderfulwaterloo.com/wdrive/Transportation%20and%20Infrastructure/Rapid%20Transit/Rapid%20Transit%20Route%20Map%20-%20March%2016,%202012.jpg


Notice of Commencement Map (http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/pdfs/2011_TPA_Notice_of_Commencement.pdf)
http://wonderfulwaterloo.com/wdrive/Transportation%20and%20Infrastructure/Rapid%20Transit/2011_TPA_Notice_of_Commencement_Map.jpg

Rapid Transit Initiative With Future Bus Connections (December 2009) (http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/pdfs/Rapid_Transit_Initiative_with_future_bus_connectio ns.pdf)
http://wonderfulwaterloo.com/wdrive/Transportation%20and%20Infrastructure/Rapid%20Transit/Rapid_Transit_Initiative_with_future_bus_connectio ns.jpg

[UrbanWaterloo]

Province promises millions for region's rapid-transit system
TAMSIN MCMAHON, The Record
(Mar 23, 2007)

Ontario promised to pour millions of dollars into Waterloo Region's proposed rapid-transit system yesterday.

The commitment came in the provincial government's latest budget: when the region is ready to build, the province will cover one third of the first phase of the project -- the $300-million link between Kitchener and Waterloo.

"What we desperately needed was a firm commitment that they were going to be there for us when we needed them," said Waterloo Region Chair Ken Seiling.

"For me, personally, it was a validation by the province that this is a project they think is important."

The money won't be required for a few years, Seiling said.

Meanwhile, technical studies and an environmental assessment are underway to come up with a recommended system made up of buses or light rail.

The region could start working on financing the project by the fall, Seiling said.

What's missing is a commitment from the federal government.

"This is obviously a signal to the feds that we're anxious for them to come to the table," Kitchener Centre MPP John Milloy said.

"We've committed to our third and my understanding is the only way the project could go forward is if the federal government came forward with its third."

Yesterday's provincial budget included another $6.5 million to the region for public-transit infrastructure, and $11 million for affordable housing.

Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig took this as a good sign.

"The very fact that we've gotten some money from the Ontario government is a positive change," he said. "They finally understand there's light outside the GTA."

Craig was, however, hoping for new money for a promised expansion of Cambridge Memorial Hospital.

The budget included about $5 million for 25 citizenship-and-cultural centres to benefit ethnic groups across the province. Kitchener Coun. Berry Vrbanovic hopes they will help the region with new Canadians who settle here.

The province also pledged to overhaul the property-assessment system by replacing yearly reassessments with increases phased in over four years, starting in 2009.

That's good news in Waterloo, where some homeowners have seen their property taxes skyrocket because of reassessments, said city Coun. Jan d'Ailly.

"We're certainly looking forward to the whole thing being revamped," he said.

But the provincial plan doesn't go far enough, said Allan Hunt, a realtor whose assessment has increased nearly 50 per cent on his Waterloo home in 10 years.

"I don't understand why they have to phase it upward all the time," he said. "If situations occur like inflation, there's no reason to raise it at all."

LOCAL SPENDING
Other budget highlights for Waterloo Region

$11.3 million for affordable housing.
$6.5 million for public transit infrastructure.
$1 million for the Catholic Family Counselling Centre's domestic violence program.
$10 million to expand broadband services across rural southern Ontario.
$350,000 to Christian Horizons, which helps people with developmental disabilities.
$250,000 for Reaching Our Outdoor Friends (ROOF) to expand its programs.
$4 million in funding for Children's Treatment Centres across Ontario, including KidsAbility.

[UrbanWaterloo]

PCC - January 2008

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/Transportation/RT_Mailer_final_-_Jan_2008_PCCs-1.jpg

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/Transportation/RT_Mailer_final_-_Jan_2008_PCCs-2.jpg


Ranking of Preliminary Route, Station and Technology Alternatives
Public Consultation Centre
Phase 2, Step 2
EVALUATION RESULTS
http://transitea.region.waterloo.on.ca/pdfs/PCC_HANDOUT_P2S2_EVALUATION_RESULTS_-_with_all_appendices.pdf



Is region on the right track?
A new study ranks 94 possible options for better public transit in Waterloo Region. Leading the list is a rapid-rail system with a first-phase cost of more than $300 million
January 08, 2008
JEFF OUTHIT AND KEVIN SWAYZE - RECORD STAFF - WATERLOO REGION
http://news.therecord.com/article/291969

http://media.therecord.topscms.com/images/bb/ff/3578b9634f7782cafdc4f798dd6a.jpeg
WATERLOO, KITCHENER AND CAMBRIDGE
LEGEND
Red line - electric train route
Green solid line - rapid bus route
Broken blue line - section dividers
This map illustrates the top-ranked rapid transit routes and technologies for seven sections of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. It is not a seamless or final proposal. The routes do not all link together, and do not share a common technology. Six use electric trains while one route uses rapid buses. Complete routes, drawn from these leading options and other contenders, will be proposed for public consideration later this year.


Costly electric trains are strongly favoured over cheaper buses in the latest study on a proposed rapid transit system.

Planners have now ranked 94 options for dozens of possible routes still under review in Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge.

Trains are favoured in six of the seven top options.

"The advice from others is that the light rail is probably the preferred route to go," Regional Chair Ken Seiling said yesterday. "It gives you a higher degree of ridership. It has a better track record of attracting investment."

Planners who took part in the regional study are pitching rapid transit as a way to lure buildings to neighbourhoods near transit stations.

This is to help meet a provincial demand that 40 per cent of new homes be built in urban areas by 2015.

"Rail has a better ability to focus development around stations," said Yanick Cyr, rapid transit project director. "It's seen as more permanent.

"Even if it's a more expensive system, it brings more benefits to the community."

Rapid transit has yet to be approved, and construction remains several years away at the earliest.

It's estimated rail transit would cost up to $306 million to build for just a first phase in Kitchener and Waterloo. That's in 2004 dollars.

Planners contend rapid transit will draw the riders it needs to be viable, even though few residents use public transit today.

Cambridge residents offered support but also skepticism in interviews near Hespeler Road.

Hans Hansen grew up in Toronto and laments the lack of rapid public transit in Cambridge.

"Here, I'm trained to drive because transit isn't developed," he said, while pumping gas into his truck at a filling station.

He doesn't like driving on Hespeler Road to head south into old Galt because "it really looks junky," traffic is thick and Grand River Transit service isn't convenient to his house.

Guy Weatherston agrees Hespeler Road is "pretty congested" with traffic but isn't convinced there's much government can do to change it.

He's indifferent to rapid transit plans -- he wouldn't use it.

Of the options, a rapid transit route "down the middle would be good," he said. "I don't know how much it would be used."

Christina Lahey sees little hope for rapid transit on car-centric Hespeler Road.

"They're dreaming," said Lahey, who walks the busy road after work. "I won't be around to see it."

It has not been determined if a Cambridge rapid transit route should travel along Hespeler Road, through Preston, or through both areas.

In the latest findings of a $2-million transit study, 94 bus and train options are ranked by 21 criteria, including ridership, cost, environmental impact and community benefits.

The only place where buses outperform trains is in the Sportsworld area of south Kitchener and north Cambridge. There, buses have the edge because they would draw more riders at much less cost.

In most other places, planners contend trains will draw more riders and also outperform buses in other ways, despite costing more.

Later this year, planners intend to narrow rapid transit options to five complete routes. These would include train routes, bus routes, and possibly a route mixing both.

"The next step is to do a cost-benefit analysis on complete systems," Cyr said.

The provincial government has pledged to pay two-thirds of construction costs for an approved first phase in Kitchener and Waterloo.

Regional council wants the federal government to pay the remaining one-third of costs but has yet to secure a commitment.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Rapid trains gather steam
Windsor-Quebec high-speed link, regional system under review
January 11, 2008
JEFF OUTHIT - RECORD STAFF - WATERLOO REGION
http://news.therecord.com/article/293561

Fast trains were the talk of the town yesterday.

Prior to the first ministers meeting in Ottawa, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Quebec Premier Jean Charest announced a joint $2-million feasibility study for a high-speed rail corridor between Windsor and Quebec City.

Meanwhile, curious residents pondered electric trains linking Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge at an open house on a proposed rapid transit system.

High-speed rail between Ontario and Quebec, with trains going faster than 200 kilometres an hour, has been studied seven times since 1984.

Governments have not acted on proposals that would cost up to $11 billion.

Although federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon last month said that Canada wasn't yet ready for high-speed trains, the premiers said he's agreed to help fund the study.

Rail advocate Paul Langan, of Cambridge, says politicians should lobby to get high-speed rail passing through this region.

"The rest of the modern world is doing it. Why not us?" asked Langan, of the lobby group Transport 2000. "I just hope it's just not another study."

Planners could recommend bypassing this region to put a bullet train on existing tracks through Brantford instead, he warned.

"Certainly, we have the population growth in the future for it to be here," Langan said.

Langan has launched a website to promote high-speed rail as an alternative to driving or flying. He favours trains on dedicated tracks without road crossings, instead of using existing tracks and competing for space with freight trains.

High-speed rail is expensive, but so is building highways and owning cars, he said.

"What we're doing right now is the most costly to the individual and to society," he said.

While governments pondered long-distance rail, residents pondered local rapid transit at a meeting in Cambridge.

Municipal planners are pitching rapid transit as a tool to draw buildings, homes and jobs to underbuilt urban centres in the region.

Mary Cunningham of Kitchener favours trains over rapid buses, even though trains cost more.

"They're just more appealing to me," she said, looking over charts and maps.

She's persuaded the region needs rapid transit, in part because local roads meander so much.

"We need to be modernized," she said.

"You can't get from A to B in a straight line anywhere."

She also figures rapid transit could bring more people and a better street life to downtown Kitchener, which she calls "a bit of a wasteland."

Robert Richardson of Puslinch figures rapid transit would help Cambridge students get easily to university campuses in Waterloo.

But he wonders if the commercial strip on Hespeler Road has the space for rail tracks, and if the area is populated enough to support rapid transit.

"I personally feel we're not dense enough," he said.

Local rapid transit remains an unfunded proposal. A $2-million study is to conclude this year.

Planners have yet to decide if rapid transit in Cambridge should go through Preston or along Hespeler Road or through both areas.

They are leaning to trains over buses, arguing they will draw more passengers and buildings and are worth the higher cost.

It's been estimated a first phase with trains between Kitchener and Waterloo would cost $306 million in 2004 dollars.


Market RT Consultation - January 2008
It wasn't as big of a set-up as I thought it would be. I asked a question regarding financing. I was told the Region is applying for funding from the federal government, however if the feds don't sign up the Region is prepared to pay 1/3rd of the cost. The planner basically said the 2/3rds provincial funding is just too much to pass up. :D

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/2008%20Singles/RapidTransitPublicConsultation-Kitc.jpg


Take the train to this region's future
January 09, 2008
THE RECORD - Editorial
http://news.therecord.com/article/292484

If Waterloo Region wants to build a transit system for tomorrow, it will buy new roads and buses. But if the region wants to build a community for the next generation and the generation after, it will tie itself together with steel rails and sleek, fast electric trains running on them. It's that simple.

This answer to the transit needs of Waterloo Region's half million citizens -- an answer slightly daring, slightly daunting and very expensive -- makes increasing sense even if it proves a tough sell for many taxpayers.

Yes, the first phase alone of a light rail transit line linking north Waterloo to downtown Kitchener would cost most than $300 million in public money. No one knows how much more it would take to complete a line running all the way down to the south end of Cambridge, though it's a fair bet it would be several times that initial $300 million outlay. Many people in Cambridge will, not surprisingly, resent seeing their tax dollars fund electric trains that serve Kitchener and Waterloo but won't reach their city for years.

At the same time, other taxpayers will be wary of spending so much on a transit system that might not be heavily used for years or even decades and will demand heavy subsidization in that time.

But the downside of light rail transit is all short-term. To obsess on it is to see only the small picture. The long-term interests of Waterloo Region -- especially its environmental and economic interests -- are eloquent arguments for light rail. That's why there should be no wonder that, after ranking more than 90 options for local public transit, planners have placed light rail transit in six of their seven top options.

Imagine the region 20 years from now: A quarter of a million more residents will be living here than there are today. The Ontario government's official policy calls for a far greater concentration of people living and working in the cores of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo. This makes sense because, for the environment's sake, we should stop building ring after ring of subdivisions spreading further and further from the city centres and covering more farmland, wetland and forests.

The time to plan for this 50 per cent population growth and much more densely populated cities is now. That's where light rail transit comes in. If we link the urban cores with a rail line, new housing and businesses will be built in the transit corridor. And as that development comes, full trains will follow.

From both economic and environmental perspectives, moving people in electric trains is a more efficient way to use energy. Canada is commited, under the Stephen Harper government and probably any federal government that follows it, to reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide that have been blamed for climate change. Electric trains will help this region get on side. On top of all this, in the era of $100 US a barrel oil, and with some experts predicting gas prices could hit $1.50 a litre by the summer -- it is easy to see how quickly electric trains could become a very, very attractive way of getting around.

This praise of light rail should not be seen as a signature on a blank cheque for an expensive project. The public needs to know more about all the options and their costs before a final decision is made. But at some point, a leap of faith may have to be taken. More and more it seems that leap will take us onto a train.


Rail project is risky
January 10, 2008
John Shortreed - Letter to the Editor
http://news.therecord.com/article/292990

Regarding the Jan. 9 editorial, Take The Train To This Region's Future, your editorial is correct "if the region wants to build a transit system for tomorrow it will buy new roads and buses. But if the region wants to build a community for the next generation . . . it will tie itself together with steel rails and sleek, fast electric trains."

This is the clearest statement I have seen that the light rail transit system has nothing to do with public rapid transit in Waterloo Region and is, in fact, not the best solution for better transit for the future. This is supported by the original phase one analysis of the viability of the light rail transit, which identified a much better public transit solution -- a bus rapid transit system.

The risk is: What if development doesn't happen? Look at the 45-year history of Toronto's University Avenue subway, opened in 1963. From 1969 to 1978 it was closed at 9:45 p.m. for lack of passengers. You can go today to Lawrence or Eglinton stations or other non-downtown stations and look in vain for the high-rise office buildings and condos attracted by the stations to support the future high density lifestyle envisaged by the region's light rail transit plan.

If it didn't happen in Toronto, with 300,000 downtown employees, why should it happen in Waterloo where the biggest employment centre is less than 20,000 employees and unlike most large cities in Canada today there is no construction boom necessary to get to the threshold of some 50,000 downtown employees by 2035?

It's surprising to me that any taxpayer from Cambridge would support light rail transit since a quick look at Edmonton, with some 60,000 downtown employees would make it clear that the south route to Cambridge will not be built in the next 50 to 100 years.

Again, thanks for so clearly pointing out that light rail transit has nothing to do with public rapid transit, which can much better be served in other much cheaper and wildly more successful ways.

To see how wildly successful that might be lookat Boulder, Colorado, which increased transit use by 400 per cent from levels similar to those in Waterloo Region, and increasde them to levels found in Ottawa, which has a bus rapid transit system.

John Shortreed, Waterloo


Light rail transit has a long record of success
January 15, 2008
Paul Langan - Letter to the Editor
http://news.therecord.com/article/295133

In response to the Jan. 10 letter from John Shortreed, Rail Project Is Risky, relating to light rail in Waterloo Region, I would like to offer these facts. First, rather than having nothing to do with public rapid transit, light rail transit is about more than just moving people.

Waterloo Region is right to consider the secondary effects of the technology choice, because the beneficial land-use influence of light rail transit is clearly observable in Calgary, Toronto, Portland, Ore. and the London Docklands, among others.

In a City of Dallas study released in September 2005, researchers Bernard L. Weinstein and Terry L. Clower estimated that at least $3.3 billion in private funds had been invested by developers at stations along the 45-mile DART light rail system serving Dallas, Garland, Richardson and Plano. Further, between 1997 and 2001, office properties near suburban DART rail stations increased in value 53 per cent more than comparable properties not served by rail.

For the same period, values of residential properties near DART rail stations rose 39 per cent more than a control group of properties not served by rail.

Second, as mentioned in the Shortreed letter, the Lawrence and Eglinton stations in Toronto are not on the University line. But at the Eglinton West and Lawrence West stations there are numerous examples of intensification including a new Loblaws store and brownfield townhomes and condos, in low, mid and highrise formats.

Third, the Ottawa bus rapid transit carries about the same number of annual riders as Calgary light rail transit (92 million versus 88 million), but Ottawa spends 50 per cent more on energy ($33 million versus $22 million), even with Calgary opting for more expensive wind power. Ottawa also accrues 20 per cent of its bus fleet mileage (10 million kilometres) with empty, deadhead buses, by far the worst ratio of a major Canadian centres. Hence the talk of moving to light rail transit in the nation's capital.

Public surveys on what mode of transit is most likely to get a person out of their car to take transit have consistently shown that light rail is preferred over buses. And the issue of the beneficial impacts on land use planning created by light rail transit is a well documented fact.

Paul Langan, Transport 2000 Canada, Cambridge


Region's transit system must connect us to the world
January 15, 2008
GEORGE BECHTEL
http://news.therecord.com/article/295132

There isn't much point in arguing against a light rail or rapid bus transit system for the Region of Waterloo.

With the Ontario government paying two-thirds of the cost, and a hope that the federal government will pay the remaining third, it's difficult to oppose a transportation system that will reduce pollution, ease traffic congestion and reduce greenhouse gas production, not to mention its major aim: to encourage a more central and compact urban development pattern.

One must be careful, however, in using a transportation facility to accomplish non-transportation goals. The Mirabel Airport outside Montreal was built to show the federal government's support for the French Canadians of Quebec. The proposed Pickering airport -- which never went ahead -- was planned to show the citizens of Toronto that the federal government was treating Toronto with the same generosity that Montreal was receiving. Mirabel is a disaster.

If decisions about the routes of the rapid transit system in Waterloo Region are based on what's good for intensification but not perhaps the best for putting the most number of people on transit vehicles, we could end up with an inefficient rapid transit system that requires large amounts of money from municipal budgets.

The huge dogleg planners have proposed, that would route the light rail train from near King and Montgomery streets, near Eastwood Collegiate, way over to Courtland Avenue, and then back to Fairview Park mall, looks like a route planned to attract property development. But it may not be the best route from a transportation standpoint.

If land use and intensification concerns are to trump transportation efficiencies, so be it. But let's not have anybody beef about paying for empty transit seats.

It's high time we look beyond route and station locations and make plans for the support that rapid transit urgently needs.

We will need wise transportation decisions from municipal, provincial and federal governments to build not only a regional transportation network but a provincial and nationwide, indeed international transportation network that for many in the Region of Waterloo will provide a trip that will begin and end with a ride on Grand River Transit's rapid transit system.

Grand River Transit needs bus routes redesigned in a grid now to bring people to the future rapid transit line, so that people are properly oriented before rapid transit is inaugurated. Grand River Transit needs to show the public a detailed iExpress bus ridership report, so the public can make meaningful contributions to our transportation decisions.

We must raise our local transit ridership numbers from its current below-average levels to above average levels before tracks are laid or wide swaths of pavement ooze over the landscape. We know how to do it. Compulsory transit passes for municipal workers and municipal property tax breaks for year-long transit users are just two appropriate incentives.

Our rapid transit service is years away, but now is the time to sit down with Via Rail and find the best way for Grand River Transit to serve the trains we have and make sure Via's Kitchener passenger train service gets a boost from the $700 million in new money Via is getting from the federal government.

The federal and provincial governments must run trains that leave from our intermodal station and get us to Toronto in an hour.

When the high-speed trains that will run along the Quebec City-Windsor corridor stop here in the Region of Waterloo do we not want them to get off that train and step across the platform on to our rapid transit system?

Are we planning to have our rapid transit system dovetail with the proposed intercity trains running between Cambridge and Brantford? Will the Cambridge-Brantford train service be extended to Port Dover to connect with the proposed Port Dover- Erie, Pa., ferry service for an 80-minute trip across Lake Erie? That's one of three ferry crossings being considered, as reported in the London Free Press.

If southern Ontario were like Austria, New Hamburg would have 18 trains a day. Kitchener would have -- in addition to hourly service to Toronto and beyond -- hourly service to Hamilton and Niagara Falls with several trains to New York City. Some of our Sarnia trains would go on to Chicago.

Then all of us would be more likely to be Region of Waterloo rapid transit passengers.

- George Bechtel, of Kitchener, has a strong interest in transportation and planning issues. Second opinion articles reflect the views of Record readers on a variety of subjects.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Timeline - January 2008
http://transitea.region.waterloo.on.ca/images/Rapid_Transit_Timeline_for_web.jpg


Time, cash key to better transit trends
April 05, 2008
JEFF OUTHIT, RECORD STAFF
http://news.therecord.com/article/332464

Politicians are spending big to expand public transit. It's not getting many of us out of our cars.

In May 2006, in Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge, 10,905 residents rode transit to work, new census counts show. That's up from 8,030 residents in May 2001.

The commuter increase, 36 per cent, sounds impressive but represents only 2,875 more passengers on Grand River Transit. And it was not cheap to get them on the bus. Politicians almost doubled spending on conventional transit over this period, to $52 million a year in 2006.

Commuters are important transit passengers. People with jobs have incomes, which suggests some can presumably afford cars. It's a telling sign of confidence if they choose public transit to get to work instead.

Persuading commuters to ride transit helps politicians make headway in easing congestion and pollution while promoting neighbourhoods that are more compact and sustainable.

But it takes a very long time to change travel habits.

Most workers in Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge -- 188,255 in 2006 -- continue to use cars, trucks and vans to get to their jobs. This is how 88 per cent of the urban population commutes, census counts show. It has barely changed since 2001, when 89 per cent commuted this way.

Over five years, transit lured 2,880 more commuters but roads captured another 15,400.

Census counts show residents in London, Hamilton, Ottawa and Toronto remain far more likely to ride transit to work.

If local transit keeps growing at the pace it has since 2001, more than a decade will pass before residents embrace transit as strongly as London residents do today.

It will be 2021 before we match current transit in Hamilton, 2041 before we reach today's ridership in Ottawa, and 2051 before transit is as popular here as in Toronto today.

Put another way, this community is a decade behind London and almost a half-century behind Toronto in developing public transit.

This is no surprise. It does not mean the effort is futile. A proposed rapid transit system, costing $306 million or more, could accelerate change. But let's be clearheaded about the challenge.

Based on slight progress measured between 2001 and 2006, getting people out of their cars in a significant way will take decades and cost a large amount of money.


Transit plans could pick up speed under proposed provincial changes
April 07, 2008
Jeff Outhit, RECORD STAFF - WATERLOO REGION
http://news.therecord.com/article/333249

Regional council may soon choose to put its $306-million rapid transit plan on the fast track.

Ontario has proposed a law to streamline transit approvals to six months, with tight timelines for public input and challenges.

This could dramatically speed planning.

Council is into the third year of a $2-million rapid transit study that may not conclude this year.

"There are absolutely some potential opportunities," said Donna Serrati, the region's project director for rapid transit.

The streamlined process is expected to become law this spring. Council would then have two months to adopt it or stick with the slower pace.

"If it would reduce the time, get us to an actual beginning of a rapid system, then I would be in favour of considering it," Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr said.

Council is studying a system of rapid buses or electric trains, linking Kitchener to Waterloo in a first phase. The province has agreed to pay two-thirds of costs.

The streamlined process would let council drop rapid buses, assert its desire for electric trains, unveil a route, and pitch it to the public.

Revisions and public input would be limited to four months. The public would have one month to object. The environment minister would have 35 days to consider objections.

This timeline alarms Jackie Van de Valk, an environmental consultant in Waterloo.

"My main concern is that the Ontario government is limiting public debate and sound, environmental planning." She agrees transit planning takes too long, but says the province is going too far.

Locally, fast-track planning for transit could also speed up:

GO Transit studies on extending commuter buses or trains to Waterloo Region.

A study of high-speed trains between Windsor and Quebec.

The public has until May 12 to comment. Details can be found online on Ontario's environmental registry.


City not sold on rapid transit
Ray Martin - Apr 11, 2008 - 12:01 AM
http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news/local/article/85378--city-not-sold-on-rapid-transit

In 30 years, Hespeler Road will be filled with highrise development and unrecognizable to most current residents. That's when Cambridge will need a rapid transit system, according to Waterloo Region planners.

"What you have to remember is that the region is trying to preplan," said Donna Serrati, project director for the region's rapid transit initiatives. "Our experience and studies are showing us that's the direction we're heading."

Even so, members of the city's economic development advisory committee (EDAC) aren't convinced that rapid transit is needed just yet, which led to a lively discussion at their Wednesday meeting.

Region transit planners are currently in the middle of a study that is plotting potential routes for a new rapid transit rail/bus system across Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo. Public meetings have been staged across the region over more than a year to determine where the new rapid transit routes should go, where its stations should be built, and when. At Wednesday's meeting, Serrati and the rapid transit initiative's principal planner, Becky Schlenvogt, updated the committee on their plans and progress.

Three Cambridge routes are being considered. One through the Preston core, and another along Hespeler Road. A third route would connect one of the two other routes at the foot of Hespeler Road to the Galt core.

The next step is to select one of five possible routes across Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge, which would include the three city routes, and bring their findings to a set of public meetings slated for June.

During the presentation, EDAC members peppered regional staff with questions about the need for the system and whether it is publicly viable.

"When this starts, we won't have the ridership of a Toronto or Ottawa, we're looking at the long term," Schlenvogt said. "It's success is hinged on intensification."

Cambridge planning commissioner Janet Babcock, who worked in Ottawa-Carlton, said Ottawa's rapid transit system failed because it was extended into the suburbs. In order to succeed, she said the system has to go from destination to destination. Babcock questioned what destinations would be planned for Waterloo Region.

"We have three very vibrant city centres here," said Schlenvogt. "Those are our destinations."

Babcock said Ottawa-Carlton boosted its development charges to be the highest in Ontario to support the now scuttled rapid transit system, suggesting the same thing would happen here.

EDAC member David Smart, a realtor, said higher development charges would dissuade developers from coming here to support the system.

When Mayor Doug Craig took the idea of rapid transit to regional council eight years ago, he said city representatives pushed to have Cambridge included in the project.

"I wanted the region to look into this, secure the routes and select the station locations," he said. "Construction was to be 20 to 30 years out. The region is moving too rapidly."

Regional Coun. Jane Brewer said Cambridge politicians had insisted the city be included in the region's plans, which had initially been tailored to just Kitchener and Waterloo.

Brewer said Grand River Transit's iXpress system, the precursor to rapid transit, is working well. Where she has concerns is with a recent provincial announcement that environmental assessments will soon have to be done within a six-month period. The process, depending on the project, can take a year or more to complete.


Rapid transit success not guaranteed
Editorial - Apr 11, 2008 - 12:00 AM
http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/opinion/editorial/article/85372--rapid-transit-success-not-guaranteed
There is a saying, "Who knows what the future holds?" And taking that adage seriously makes talks of rapid transit in the city somewhat disturbing.

Plans were being made for 30 years in the future about how this city and region will need a bus/light rail transit system. Suddenly, the region wants it now.

The most troubling comment that came out of Wednesday's EDAC meeting was by Becky Schlenvogt, who said that rapid transit's success in the city will hinge on "intensification".

So how do you make people want to take light rail? Make it free. Will that happen - not likely.

In addition, if the thought process exists that we really don't need it now, why would it change in 30 years? Sure, this city has grown exponentially in the last 10 to 15 years, but city planners are relaizing that available land - industrial or residential - has almost run dry, unless a few more wetlands are dug up.

Success is solely based on a cost-to- ridership ratio, and it's hard to fathom that if it didn't work in Ottawa, why would it work here.

Then again, it might prove to be a successful venture. But we need to see the dollar signs involved first.


Rapid transit plan gets fast-tracked
May 24, 2008
Jeff Outhit
http://news.therecord.com/article/355321

Politicians may approve rapid transit as early as next summer, nine years after regional council first pitched the idea.

This means electric trains could be operating on local streets by 2013, after design and construction.

At the invitation of the Ontario government, which is paying two-thirds of construction costs, council voted this month to speed approvals. Here's the latest timeline:

A recommended system and route is to be unveiled this fall, involving electric trains, rapid buses or some combination.

Public review of the rapid transit proposal will conclude by next spring, in just four months. Council will then send a final recommendation to the province.

Final provincial approval is expected within two months, in the summer of 2009.

This approval timeline shaves up to 22 months off the current process. Critics might see this as an attempt to ram through a plan, but the province contends worthy transit projects are stalling in red tape.

Based on previous votes, my guess is council will favour electric trains, called light rapid transit.

Launch costs could exceed $457 million (in 2009 dollars) for a first phase in Kitchener and Waterloo. This estimate builds construction inflation into a federal estimate of $306 million, in 2004 dollars.

Since 2001, council has pitched rapid transit as a tool to draw homes and jobs to the underused urban spine linking Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. Ridership projections have been modest, as expected in a community where few ride transit.

In assessing rapid transit, people must decide: Will it be a costly white elephant or a visionary tool to reshape our urban form?

Critics will be limited in how they can campaign to block rapid transit. For example:

The province says it will not consider objections about impacts on property values or potential disruptions to local businesses.

The province will not consider objections about noise, traffic or similar neighbourhood concerns.

The province will not consider objections that council has wrongly ruled out alternatives such as rapid buses or a monorail.

Objections on such grounds can only be made to regional council.

The province is vowing to restrict its assessment to matters of significant provincial interest.

These include impacts on groundwater and waterways, rare and endangered species, aboriginal treaty rights, nursing homes, group homes and hospitals, designated historic buildings, and parks and trail systems.

This is meant to make regional council the place to resolve most rapid transit concerns.

It's too early to know what those concerns may be. But think about this: Some people are unhappy when council runs a Grand River Transit bus on their street. How will they react if council runs a train past their front door?


Public Consultation Centres - June 2008: http://transitea.region.waterloo.on.ca/pdfs/RTMeetinginvitation.pdf


Shortlist of Routes - June 11, 2008: http://transitea.region.waterloo.on.ca/pdfs/Rapid_Transit_routes_-_June_11_-_11_x_17.pdf

[UrbanWaterloo]

Regional rapid transit could make a very different future
June 24, 2008
Kevin Swayze, Record staff - Web edition
http://news.therecord.com/News/article/372713

Where are all the cars, parking lots and garish signs?

Along a future Hespeler Road, as envisioned by planners at Waterloo Region, a new rapid transit line has helped transform an ugly commercial strip into bustling urban hip.

As part of a study to pick a preferred type and route for rapid transit between St. Jacobs and downtown Galt, region officials have created computer models showing what can happen to car-centric areas when lots of people don't need cars to move around.

The video shows Hespeler Road in Cambridge, Charles Street in Kitchener and King Street in Waterloo -- all along proposed routes for bus or light-rail rapid transit.

Region officials don't say rapid transit will force the change, but do say easier, more-efficient ways of moving people allow developers to make better use of available land. Stores and restaurants at street front, with commercial and office space overhead, can make for makes for lively, fun places to live, they say,

A public meeting in the rapid transit study is set for today 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the United Kingdom Club, 35 International Village Dr., Cambridge. Meetings were held last week in Kitchener and Waterloo.

The study will also have displays at the Mill Race Festival in downtown Cambridge, Aug. 2 and August 3, and at the Waterloo Busker Festival, Aug. 22 and Aug. 23.

Proposed final type of transit -- bus or train -- and final routes are expected to be ready for regional council to consider by fall.

Already, regional staff stay talks have started with Queen's Park about how to pay for building it, with work starting as soon as 2013. Initial estimates but the cost at $300 million to build first phase of rapid transit in Kitchener-Waterloo, with Cambridge following later.

View http://transitea.region.waterloo.on.ca/ for details of the study.

Regional rapid transit simulation video

http://media.therecord.com/images/a6/8f/dac2d8814c7fb6202a9d3943e337.jpeg (http://news.therecord.com/videogallery/371545)


Canada and Ontario Sign $6.2-Billion Building Canada Infrastructure Agreement Improvements to Highway 11/17 in northwestern Ontario, Ontario rural broadband coverage, Waterloo Region rapid transit, and the Huron Elgin London Project for clean water are priorities under Building Canada and ReNew Ontario
Improvements to Highway 11/17 in northwestern Ontario, Ontario rural broadband coverage, Waterloo Region rapid transit, and the Huron Elgin London Project for clean water are priorities under Building Canada and ReNew Ontario

Backgrounder (http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/media/news-nouvelles/2008/20080724london-eng.html#bg)

London, Ontario, July 24, 2008 — The governments of Canada and Ontario today announced the signing of an infrastructure Framework Agreement worth more than $6.2 billion under Building Canada, the Government of Canada's long-term infrastructure plan. The Plan will help address infrastructure needs and priorities in Ontario until 2014.

http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/images/20080724london.jpg
From left to right: the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; the Honourable George Smitherman, Ontario Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Infrastructure; the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance; and the Honourable Dwight Duncan, Ontario Minister of Finance.

The Honorable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Honourable George Smitherman, Ontario Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, and the Honourable Dwight Duncan, Ontario Minister of Finance, participated in today's announcement.

The governments of Canada and Ontario also identified improvements on Highway 11/17 in northwestern Ontario, expanding rural broadband coverage in southern and eastern Ontario, and rapid transit in the Waterloo region as initial priorities that the two governments will work together on under Building Canada. In addition, the Government of Canada has previously announced up to $50 million to the HELP Clean Water (Huron Elgin London Project) and Ontario today also committed up to $50 million for the project as well. Both governments have also previously announced up to $50 million each towards the expansion of the Ottawa Congress Centre.

"The Building Canada infrastructure plan will help support economic growth, a cleaner environment and the overall prosperity of all Ontarians," said Minister Cannon. "Substantial infrastructure funding was long overdue in this country and we're getting it done. Clean drinking water, safer highways, expanded public transit and improved connectivity are all clear examples of the concrete results that Building Canada will deliver to the people, cities and communities of Ontario."

"The Framework Agreement will help keep Ontarians green and connected – through investments in transit, roads, and surfing the Internet. The McGuinty government is committed to building a better quality of life for Ontarians, and this agreement is a clear example of how we all benefit when the governments of Ontario and Canada work together," said Minister Smitherman.

"As Canada's Minister of Finance, I appreciate the importance of investing in infrastructure, that's why we are making the largest single federal investment in public infrastructure since World War Two, that's why we made federal gas tax funding permanent, and that's why we have established the Government of Canada's first public, private partnership office," said Minister Flaherty.

"The funding under the Framework Agreement will help create good-paying jobs and strengthen our economic competitiveness," said Minister Duncan. "Together, we are making the right investments in Ontario's infrastructure to position this province for future prosperity."

"I'm truly happy we've signed the Framework Agreement with the Province of Ontario," said Canada's Environment Minister John Baird. "It will greatly benefit our cities and communities by helping ensure a more competitive economy, stronger communities, a cleaner environment, and a more prosperous Ontario."

Through its unprecedented $33-billion Building Canada infrastructure plan, the Government of Canada will provide long-term, stable and predictable funding to help meet infrastructure needs across Canada. Building Canada will support a stronger, safer and better country.

Read the Framework Agreement >> (http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/plandocs/agreements-ententes/ifa-eci-on-eng.html)

For further information contact:

Karine White
Press Secretary
Office of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
613-991-0700

Laurel Ostfield
Press Secretary
Office of the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure
416-327-4418

Infrastructure Canada
613-948-1148


Feds, Ont. commit $6.2B to boost province's infrastructure
Last Updated: Thursday, July 24, 2008 | 12:03 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/07/24/ot-infrastructure-080724.html

The federal and Ontario governments have signed a deal that commits $6.2 billion for roads, bridges, broadband internet and other infrastructure improvements in the province over the next six years.

Lawrence Cannon, federal minister of transport, infrastructure and communities, announced Thursday morning that the federal government will provide $3.09 billion of that money under Building Canada, a national plan launched in November, and Ontario will match the funding, which will be distributed through to 2014.

"A modern infrastructure is key to provide essential services to Canadians such as clean drinking water, clean air and green energy, modern roads, bridges and overpasses, strong borders and congestion solutions," Cannon said at a news conference in London, Ont., that was also attended by federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Ontario Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman.

Cannon indicated the money was also intended to boost the struggling Ontario economy, which shrank 0.3 per cent during the first quarter, according to provincial government figures.

"We are ensuring … all Ontarians a more competitive economy, stronger communities, a cleaner environment and a more prosperous Ontario," Cannon said.

Smitherman said the investment in Ontario's infrastructure is "much needed" and the deal "has been a long time coming."

Priorities for the new infrastructure money include:

Improvements on Highway 11/17 from Thunder Bay to the Manitoba border.
Expanding rural broadband internet coverage in southern and eastern Ontario.
Rapid transit in the Waterloo region.

Most of the money will go toward large-scale projects, but $362 million has been reserved for projects in communities of less than 100,000 people.


Region's residents strongly favour 'wow' factor of rapid trains
August 19, 2008
Jeff Outhit, RECORD STAFF - WATERLOO REGION
http://news.therecord.com/article/401230

Residents strongly favoured electric trains over rapid buses at recent public meetings on rapid transit.

Almost 900 people attended five meetings held since June.

According to a summary of public comments, residents said trains would draw more riders, look better, be faster and quieter, be more friendly to the environment and spur redevelopment around stations.

"Essentially, people are seeing it as a bit of a 'Wow' factor," said Thomas Schmidt, regional transportation commissioner. "They see it as something that people are going to use more than bus rapid transit."

Proponents of rapid buses say they are cheaper and more flexible.

Regional councillors are to review public input today. Council plans to vote on rapid transit next year, after a final proposal is released this fall. The proposal is expected to detail costs, route, ridership and technology. A system could be built by 2013.

Costs to launch rapid transit in Kitchener and Waterloo would exceed $306 million for trains versus $112 million for buses. These estimates exclude construction inflation since 2004.

Council has previously favoured trains, called light rail transit, over buses. It's been argued that trains will attract new buildings and get more people out of their cars.

But transportation expert John Shortreed argues strongly for rapid buses rather than trains.

Shortreed sees trains as more glamorous but too costly, risky and inflexible. He contends it's a myth that light rail will spur significant redevelopment near local stations.

Downtown Kitchener has too few employees to support light rail transit, Shortreed contends.

"I don't think you will see the population estimates to justify LRT," he told Waterloo councillors last night. Shortreed, a retired professor of transportation planning at the University of Waterloo, also said rapid transit along King Street in the Waterloo core would be "horrendous." He suggested Caroline Street instead.

Shortreed figures rapid buses would draw passengers far more cheaply and could eventually be replaced by trains if demand builds.

"Once people look at the ridership, once people look at the flexibility, once people look at the huge risk associated with a fixed rail facility, they begin to see the benefits of bus," he said.

Funding for the first phase of rapid transit would come mostly from Ontario.

The federal government says rapid transit is also at the top of its funding list.

There's a short list of possible rapid transit routes. Results from public meetings suggest that residents:

Are split on possible routes in Waterloo. Options include King Street North or the rail corridor through Waterloo Park.

Favour Charles Street over Duke Street in downtown Kitchener.

Favour Courtland Avenue over Kingsway Drive in south Kitchener.

Favour Hespeler Road over Coronation Boulevard in Cambridge.


City of Waterloo COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, September 22, 2008: http://www.waterloo.ca/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/CS_CLERKS_Minutes_2008/20080922_Packet_Council_Meeting.pdf
Page 11
Dave Durant, Project Manager, Region of Waterloo Rapid Transit Initiative, provided an overview of the Rapid Transit Initiative Environmental Study – Background, evaluation of Light Rapid Transit and Bus Rapid Transit, and route options.
John Shortreed, representing the Urban Vision Committee, advised that the Committee prefers the proposed Caroline Street route and that decided members of the Committee prefer Bus Rapid Transit over Light Rapid Transit, but confirmed some members are undecided on that issue. Mr. Shortreed outlined several other recommendations proposed by the Committee:
• station to be located with good visual and pedestrian linkages to the UpTown
• Region of Waterloo to be encouraged to conduct a community visioning workshop, since it is important that people be able to see physically what is planned
• physical barriers to pedestrian and cycling mobility across the route to be minimized
• pedestrian and cyclist linkages between Waterloo Park and UpTown to be maintained
• high frequency feed bus routes to be planned to link the north end of the University transit systems to Waterloo Square
• improved pedestrian and cyclist linkages between the station and Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex
• treed vegetative buffers in the UpTown
• use of bollards/fencing planters and attractive dividers rather than concrete barriers to protect transit row
• in the case of Light Rapid Transit, incorporate overhead wiring with attractive light standards
• priority to be given to protect sidewalk widths and pedestrian/cycling in the redesign of the road system
• Mr. Shortreed also commented on his own behalf as a resident, noting
• it is essential that Council review updated demand and cost estimates
• that the environmental impact study currently favours Light Rapid Transit, but if the environmental impact of road salt is removed, the study supports Bus Rapid Transit
• that the flexibility of Bus Rapid Transit could build on the current momentum of UpTown Waterloo with improvements in iExpress, while Light Rapid Transit would have no impact until 2013 or later
• Bus Rapid is more flexible than Light Rapid Transit and route flexibility is important
• new ridership estimates are required

[UrbanWaterloo]

Craig a booster of rapid transit, but doubts it will come to Cambridge
September 30, 2008
Kevin Swayze, Record staff
http://news.therecord.com/article/422043

CAMBRIDGE -- Rapid-transit trains should follow Eagle Street, Hespeler Road and Water Street into old Galt, but Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig doubts he'll ever see them roll in his city.

And he wonders if it taxpayers can afford them in Kitchener and Waterloo, either.

Long a booster of passenger rail and rapid transit, Craig said he¹s dismayed at the progress of a $2-million rapid-transit study by Waterloo Region. The study is looking for the best route for a system would run from Cambridge to St. Jacobs and link the downtown cores of Cambridge. Kitchener and Waterloo.

It's also examining the choice between dedicated express bus lanes or modern streetcars, sometimes referred to as light rail. Craig suspects a train system would cost more than $1 billion to build, not counting annual operating subsidies.

He asked regional officials about costs of the project Monday during a presentation at Cambridge City Hall. He repeated his concern that trains would go to Kitchener-Waterloo first, with a connection to an express-bus service to Cambridge. Cambridge would get trains later.

"We have to be very honest about that . . . I think the only way we're going to see it down here is if they start it down here," he said.

Craig suggested the project should be "area rated" on regional tax bills: If Kitchener and Waterloo get rapid transit first, only those taxpayers there would pay for it.

When rapid transit expands south, then Cambridge taxpayers would contribute.

Number-crunching for the project is underway, said Donna Serrati, project director for the regional study. She offered no estimates.

Serrati said the project is being budgeted as a single package, but agreed with Craig it would likely be built in phases.

The federal and provincial governments have said they would contribute, but want to see a complete plan for setting amounts, she said.

A final route for the service, and the choice of buses or trains, goes before regional council next year.

Cambridge council voted Monday night in favour of a route along Eagle Street, Hespeler Road and Water Street. Councillors rejected one that would follow Coronation Boulevard, Dundas Street and Beverly Street.

For more information on the rapid-transit study, visit http://transitea.region.waterloo.on.ca


Rapid transit debate warrants scrutiny
January 10, 2009
Jeff Outhit
http://news.therecord.com/article/469786

Rapid transit is poised to move from proposal to approval, in lightning speed.

Within three months, planners will recommend a system to Waterloo regional council, linking Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge along the central urban spine.

Expect a pitch for light rail transit (electric trains) with a first phase linking Conestoga Mall in Waterloo with Fairview Park mall in Kitchener. I suspect construction costs for the first phase may exceed $457 million.

Local public review will last just four months. If council approves, it will be sent to the province, which has up to two months to decide.

Quick approval is intended to keep rapid transit projects from stalling in red tape and neighbourhood objections.

Before this year ends, provincial and federal governments are expected to agree to pay launch costs for a first phase. Construction would begin in 2012 and trains would run in 2014.

Issues to keep in mind:

Is there a pressing transportation need for electric trains? No. Transit is little-used here. This will not change when rapid transit arrives. Ridership projections have been slim.

If the only goal is improved transit, adding regular buses or rapid buses would be much cheaper.

So why install costly tracks and trains? Because this project is mostly about land use. Politicians see trains as the best tool to draw buildings, jobs and residents to underdeveloped urban cores. This is to help meet targets for smart growth.

Studies suggest rapid buses do not draw investment. This is why councillors have favoured trains since proposing rapid transit in 2002.

Also, trains sound world-class. Buses do not. Rail has a wow factor that many find appealing.

Will trains make urban cores busy and vibrant? Possibly, over time. Studies suggest trains have boosted property values near stations and tracks in other North American cities, drawing developers and invigorating neighbourhoods.

Isn't this a costly gamble? There's no guarantee trains will draw passengers and developers. Some critics fear a failed megaproject. But there are ways to mitigate risks to local taxpayers.

One way is to persuade senior governments to pay construction costs. Another is to pick an attractive route and system. Councillors also plan to buy underused properties near stations, clean them up, then dangle them in front of investors.

Rapid transit has huge implications for taxpayers and property owners. We all need to pay attention to the debate coming this year.


$25M; Rapid transit gets big commitment from regional council
January 15, 2009
Jeff Outhit, RECORD STAFF - WATERLOO REGION
http://news.therecord.com/article/472184

Regional council voted yesterday to spend up to $25 million on rapid transit, in a community where almost everyone drives and few ride transit.

It would be the first of many payments on a project intended to draw buildings, jobs and residents to urban neighbourhoods. Council approved the funds yesterday during its annual budget process.

Assuming council approves a rapid transit system later this year, this cash will be spent to:

Buy land, for a maintenance facility, stations and park-and-ride sites.

Hire up to 16 people to oversee the project.

"We want to hit the ground running," said Coun. Jim Wideman of Kitchener.

Committing $25 million in local funds sends a message to senior governments that council is serious about building rapid transit, Regional Chair Ken Seiling said.

The federal and provincial governments have said they want to pay most costs to build a first phase. But it's not known if they will pay all costs.

Councillors have been warned they may have to put $150 million in local funds into the project.

Rapid transit construction is proposed in 2012-2014, pending council approval.

Construction and operating costs are still unknown. Councillors have yet to choose a route, or decide on rapid buses or electric trains. These details are expected to be unveiled within three months.

Public review and approval of a proposed system is expected to take six months at most.

Construction costs for a first phase, linking Kitchener and Waterloo, could exceed $457 million. This estimate builds construction inflation into a rail estimate released in 2004.

Rapid transit was proposed in 2002 to encourage urban redevelopment. Almost $4 million has been spent to date on various studies.

Councillors have previously favoured electric trains over rapid buses because research suggests trains are more likely to encourage urban renewal.

Regular transit is little used here. In 2007, residents took 43 per cent fewer transit trips than the average for residents in big cities.

Grand River Transit provided 31 per cent less service per resident than the average transit service.


Corners cut on transit spending
January 17, 2009
Jeff Outhit
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/473516

Regional council has voted to hike spending on roads, transit and the airport. The extra spending approved this year could top $40 million if rapid transit is approved.

So the 2009 budget is not standing still on transportation.

However, to keep a lid on costs, council rejected other proposed transportation upgrades estimated to cost more than $17 million.

Highlights of what council turned down and what it means:

Council did not buy technology to announce all bus stops electronically.

Implication: There's no end in sight to a human rights showdown. Drivers have been told to call out all bus stops to assist the blind but have refused, saying their safety is at risk.

Council did not boost funding for road repairs fast enough to keep up with construction inflation.

Implication: A backlog of road repairs that was to disappear by 2020 will now continue past 2032.

Council did not set aside any funds to help pay for future GO Transit railway stations.

Implication: GO trains may arrive within five years but there's no cash saved to pay local costs that could reach $30 million.

Council did not increase bus pass subsidies for the working poor.

Implication: After the latest fare hike, some low-income residents may find it too costly to ride the bus.

Council did not boost spending to build bicycle lanes and facilities.

Implication: The cycling network, 35 per cent completed, will not be finished by 2024 as planned.

Council did not increase spending to build sidewalks.

Implication: Many regional roads that need sidewalks will not get them, frustrating pedestrians.

Council did not buy more buses to expand Grand River Transit.

Implication: Passengers may continue to be left stranded by overcrowded buses on major routes. Ridership may not grow as fast.

Council will not replace transit buses after 12 years.

Implication: Buses will continue to decay over 18 years. This adds maintenance costs and reduces reliability.

Council will not expand maintenance and cleaning at the airport as it gets busier.

Implication: There's a higher risk of flight delays and cancellations and greater likelihood of dirty bathrooms, floors and public areas.

Next year, council will be asked again to endorse many of these proposals. Some concerns, such as overcrowded buses and airport maintenance, may be resolved this year by squeezing other funds.

But it appears the community will fall behind in some efforts, such as repairing roads, adding cycling lanes and installing sidewalks.


Region would benefit from rapid transit
January 22, 2009
http://news.therecord.com/article/475417

Re: Rapid Transit Debate Warrants Scrutiny -- Jan. 10

As Jeff Outhit suggests, we all need to pay attention to the debate about rapid transit. We need to support the rapid transit system side of the debate. A system serving all three cities in the region, linked to GO expansion, will enhance the region as a place to live and work.

If we continue to rely on the automobile and allow development to be shaped by the automobile, this region will stagnate in congested roads and auto-related plazas repeated ad nauseam. Is there really much difference between the Hespeler and Pinebush roads area of Cambridge,the Sportsworld area in Kitchener and the Northfield Road and King Street area of Waterloo? More of the same is on the way on Ira Needles Boulevard and Fischer-Hallman Road. A good rapid transit system would reduce the need for this kind of repetition.

With a rapid transit system this region has the potential to be a great linear city stretching from old Galt to St. Jacobs. Shopping, jobs, homes and entertainment could all be oriented to the rapid transit system allowing for a more diverse and accessible region.

Brian Bee, Kitchener


Buried Power Source
dunkalunk; 01-27-2009
I was browsing the CPTDB today and I found something that might work for this region. Bombardier is developing a catenary-less power system using buried wires called PRIMOVE which is available on their tram systems. Its similar to the Bordeaux setup in the fact that the power is only turned on when there is a train above it.
But, unlike Bordeaux, the power source is buried and power transmission is contactless.
For areas that are not along King Street, or outside of urban cores, a regular caternary could still be used.
Here's the website (http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/sustainability/technology/primove-catenary-free-operation?docID=0901260d800486ab)explaining the system and a video (http://www.bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/image_and_media/products/PRIMOVE.wmv)(13.6MB wmv) to help illustrate the concept, nevermind the overarticulation.
Bordeaux
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Frankreich_2007.10.17_125653_.jpg/240px-Frankreich_2007.10.17_125653_.jpg
PRIMOVE
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/8481/trackya4.jpg
Bordeaux's problem is the exposed third rail, allowing water to affect the transfer of energy. PRIMOVE and it's track look cosmetically like a conventional Diesel powered unit but without the emissions. the power source is buried. When the video claims its operable in all weather conditions, I hope they included snow and ice.
It would certainly get rid of all of the NIBMBYism associated with caternary and poles running every which way, but at what cost? I'm being genuine here, how much more a system like this would cost compared to conventional caternary is yet to be seen. But in this instance, I hope vision doesn't have to justify itself too much for feasibility.


Rapid transit's backers need to see bigger financial picture
Kitchener woman horrified when she learns she'll have to pay for utility pole damaged in accident that killed her partner
February 21, 2009
Jeff Outhit
http://news.therecord.com/article/491695

Taxpayers will face a series of big bills if politicians approve a rapid transit system this year. Some costs will be clear. But other costs may be less defined.

Keep this in mind when weighing the merits of the plan.

Regional council proposes rapid transit as a way to draw people, jobs and buildings to underdeveloped areas near a rapid transit line. Electric trains are the likely choice.

Rapid buses are far cheaper but are seen as less attractive to investors. Public costs will include:

Construction costs. They are not yet released but I suspect costs could exceed $457 million, for a first phase with electric trains.

Operating costs. They are not yet released but old studies, now outdated, estimated $4 million a year.

Associated costs. These could include tens of millions to resolve traffic fallout and to buy up land near transit stations.

For example, council plans to spend $39 million to widen the last narrow part of Weber Street West in Kitchener. This is an old plan moving forward because of rapid transit.

Cars will be displaced from King Street if a dedicated transit lane consumes two of four lanes there. Weber is the best alternate route, but not with its two-lane bottleneck between College and Guelph streets.

It's unrealistic to expect drivers pushed off King Street to suddenly switch to rapid transit. It's smart to plan for this traffic fallout.

But this begs the question: are there other sites in Kitchener and Waterloo where traffic fixes will be required? How much will it cost to carry traffic pushed out of transit lanes?

Planners have not identified other problem sites, but it makes sense to estimate these costs.

Also uncertain is the cost of council's plan to buy underused properties near rapid transit stations.

Politicians intend to assemble lots, demolish old buildings, clean up dirty soil, then dangle prepared sites in front of investors. This is meant to encourage urban renewal.

The plan has some merit but also some risk. Some public costs will be recovered when land is sold but it's unlikely all costs will be recovered.

The financial implications of rapid transit extend beyond building and operating trains or buses. This bigger financial picture needs to be part of the public debate.

[UrbanWaterloo]

SUBJECT: RAPID TRANSIT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT – SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OUTREACH INITIATIVES AND NEXT STEPS
March 31, 2009
http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/8ef02c0fded0c82a85256e590071a3ce/790B281C9D0A0AC585257586005563E5/$file/E-09-043.pdf

A Functional Design was completed in March 2009 for the short-listed route options to address several design challenges, including navigating through the constrained downtown cores, integration with existing road infrastructure, and access and turning movement considerations. The Functional Design will form the technical basis of the Rapid Transit Project, for which approval from the Ministry of the Environment will be sought under the recently approved Transit Environmental Regulation (six month process) once a rapid transit system has been considered by Regional Council.

A target of May 2009 is anticipated for the presentation of the preliminary preferred rapid transit system. A panel of third party experts in the fields of transit and land use planning will be assembled to review the EA study methodology and cost-benefit analysis. The findings of the expert review panel will be presented to the public and Regional Council together with the preliminary preferred rapid transit system.


City of Waterloo - Monday, April 6, 2009 - Page 160: http://www.city.waterloo.on.ca/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-49f5-b282-c6475cdb7ee7/CS_CLERKS_Minutes_2009/20090406_Packet_Committee_of_the_Whole.pdf
Uptown Vision Committee: Page 196


Not on board
For Waterloo Region, there are better ways to improve transit than trains, former councillor says
April 25, 2009
Jeff Outhit, RECORD STAFF - WATERLOO REGION
http://news.therecord.com/article/526573

http://media.therecord.topscms.com/images/50/e1/c9a4fd6840528b2e5725778a136c.jpeg

John Shortreed fears the worst if politicians build the rapid transit system they are studying.

"The region is about to commit to a big white elephant," warns Shortreed, a former Waterloo councillor. "The number one concern is that it's a huge risk. You're making a half-billion dollar bet."

Waterloo Region government plans to unveil a rapid transit proposal next month. Construction could launch in 2012.

Proponents say it will bring jobs and homes to underused urban neighbourhoods by increasing land values near stations. Critics agree better transit is needed but see rapid transit as a leap too far.

"I don't think it's a good idea for Waterloo, as it currently stands," said Ruth Haworth, a member of a citizens committee to advise Waterloo council on downtown issues.

Haworth fears putting trains on King Street in Waterloo will damage the only downtown that's already flourishing by frustrating traffic and parking and by discouraging cyclists and pedestrians.

"We're way too small for this," says Haworth, a transit user. "This is going to be such a white elephant that it will reduce our ability to have other good transit routes."

Rapid transit will consist of electric trains or rapid buses on the urban spine linking Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge. Construction costs for trains will exceed $306 million.

"Urban planners are driving this thing," says Shortreed, a retired University of Waterloo professor who has taught transportation planning.

"They believe it will save energy. They believe that if you build it, they will come. They believe it's the right thing to do."

But he estimates just a 10 per cent chance rapid transit will achieve its goals. He sees a 90 per cent chance of an underperforming system that drains public coffers.

UW professor Jeff Casello disagrees, saying big spending is needed to achieve big results.

"If we invest only a little bit, we are likely to have very little influence on land-use patterns," says Casello, an expert in transportation planning.

"And if we are to invest quite a bit more, then we are likely to see greater impacts on land-use changes."

One real estate study predicts rail transit will boost land values by 10 to 18 per cent near local stations.

Shortreed argues rapid transit is a bad idea because:

Other North American cities with rapid transit are much bigger and tend to have dominant downtowns, Shortreed says.

By comparison, local downtowns lack the office jobs, traffic delays and high parking fees that encourage transit use elsewhere.

Looking forward, Shortreed does not expect local downtowns to gain many jobs. He figures technology firms will continue to choose campus-style suburban locations because this suits their employees.

Casello agrees this is a small community for rapid transit by North American standards. He disagrees it needs to be bigger or will not grow bigger.

Regional Chair Ken Seiling describes Shortreed as a lone voice of scholarly dissent. Building rapid transit now will prevent land-use mistakes other cities have made and are struggling to fix, he says.

Shortreed contends politicians can achieve their goals more effectively with other transit upgrades. Examples include: More frequent buses, realigned bus routes, a limited streetcar system in Kitchener and Waterloo, development incentives and passenger conveniences.


Don't let vanity guide rapid-transit vote
April 25, 2009
Jeff Outhit
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/526443

It's time to make up your mind about rapid transit.

Planners intend to propose a system to regional councillors May 12. It's expected to detail the technology, route, ridership, costs, benefits and staging. All the important stuff.

Council could endorse the project by June 24. Provincial approval could come by December. Construction could launch in 2012.

Critics see rapid transit as a costly white elephant. They fear it will perform badly and derail worthier transit upgrades.

Proponents say it's a visionary tool that will draw jobs and homes to underused urban neighbourhoods by hiking property values.

Approval is being fast-tracked to keep the project from stalling in red tape. So if you have something to say to politicians, it's best to say it before June 24. After that, the project will be harder to derail.

I anticipate planners will propose launching electric trains on dedicated tracks on the urban spine of Waterloo and Kitchener. I suspect startup costs may exceed $457 million.

Here's a new wrinkle. I'm hearing cheaper rapid buses may be proposed in Cambridge, with construction sooner rather than later.

There are upsides to bringing Cambridge into rapid transit early on. Planners have said the system could mix buses and trains, with one transfer point. Presumably this transfer would be in south Kitchener.

The rapid transit proposal will be a lot to digest. Do your best to judge it on its merits. Try not to let momentum, funding offers or community vanity cloud your judgment.

The project has momentum because politicians are keen on transit, infrastructure spending is all the rage, $4 million has been spent on studies, and council has put $25 million on the table to move forward.

But remember, few ride transit here. This is not going to change soon. Disregard the momentum and demand to see good reasons to go ahead.

The provincial and federal governments have said they may pay most construction costs. This is helpful but don't say yes just because other taxpayers are paying the bill. The plan still needs to make sense.

Trains have an appealing wow factor. But don't get stars in your eyes. Wanting to feel world-class is understandable but vanity is a poor reason to launch a project.

Rapid transit might be the biggest thing ever done here. Make politicians and planners persuade you their plan is smart and will work.


dunkalunk Maps - April 2009
Uptown LRT Tunnel: http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=112509077600247168599.0004684f386d5d9be4ec9&ll=43.463635,-80.525665&spn=0.018938,0.04549&t=h&z=15
Victoria Station Grade Separations: http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=112509077600247168599.000462bd40c2ce6f0e717&t=h&z=16


Plan transit for future
May 05, 2009
http://news.therecord.com/article/531684

Re: Don't Let Vanity Guide Rapid-Transit Vote -- April 25

While I support a rapid transit line in Waterloo Region, I am also skeptical. The line needs to be built to be able to handle demand for at least a couple of decades from its opening date and to mitigate effects on local traffic flow.

During the construction of the project additional measures need to be taken to ensure speed and service reliability. I would hate to see the region stuck with a line that would become obsolete within 15 years and that would require costly correction and lengthy disruptions to traffic.

Regardless, rapid transit is still a conduit for intensification. Traditional suburban growth is unsustainable and infeasible as sprawl approaches the countryside line. We have run out of space for road expansion.

The region needs all transit, especially rapid transit to turn itself into a community designed around the needs of people and not the around the needs of the single-occupant vehicle.

Duncan Clemens, Kitchener


City will ‘never see’ light rail, says mayor
Greg MacDonald, Times Staff - May 07, 2009
http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news/local/article/111210--city-will-never-see-light-rail-says-mayor

Region of Waterloo is expected to announce a final transit plan Friday that will see rapid bus service implemented in Cambridge.
Regional officials are also believed to be to revealing that Waterloo and Kitchener will be connected by a light rail line which will go from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Mall.

From there, buses would proceed to Highway 401, head east to Highway 24 and come down Hespeler Road, Water and Ainslie streets to the Cambridge bus terminal in the Galt core.

The plans are not yet finalized and will be released Friday afternoon. The region has yet to reveal details on the cost of the project.

And the plan could still be altered before it is released to see buses or light rail throughout the entire region.

But Mayor Doug Craig doesn’t think this city will ever have rail transit.

“We will never see light rail in Cambridge,” Craig said. “It costs too much money for a system from Conestoga Mall down to Ainsile Street.”

The reasoning behind the move is that Cambridge doesn’t have the population density to warrant light rail, Craig said.

“When you put Kitchener and Waterloo together, there’s enough density. But it would work the same way if you put Cambridge and Kitchener together as well,” he said.

Craig is waiting to see the final proposal, but he’s concerned that Cambridge residents will have to share the cost of the project, even though they’re getting a different service.

“That’s one of the concerns I’ll bring up,” he said.

Regional councillor Claudette Millar believes that if the region goes with two different plans, citizens will feel misled.

“I think the community assumes more than anything that the project will be same…from Waterloo to Cambridge,” Millar said.

She believes that people will be angry if Cambridge is handed a different option than the other two cities – and rightly so.

“We deserve the same,” she said.


Newsletter - Spring 2009: http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/pdfs/RapidTransit_NL_Spring09-2.pdf
Based on the results of this study, the recommended Stage 1 includes:

Light Rail Transit (LRT) from Conestoga Mall in Waterloo to Fairview Park Mall in Kitchener
Adapted Bus Rapid Transit (aBRT) from Fairview Mall in Kitchener to Ainslie Street terminal in Downtown Cambridge


SUBJECT: RAPID TRANSIT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PHASE 2, STEP 3b –
PREFERRED RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM OPTION AND STAGING PLAN INFORMATION IN ADVANCE OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION CENTRES
May 12, 2009
http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/pdfs/E-09-056_PREFERRED_RAPID_TRANSIT_SYSTEM2.pdf
Preferred Route: http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/pdfs/Rapid_Transit_Initiative_with_future_bus_connectio ns2.pdf
http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/Waterloo_RT_small.jpg
Click to enlarge (http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/Waterloo_RT_big.jpg)


Rapid Transit Email - RE: Preferred Route May 2009

Good Afternoon,

The Region of Waterloo’s Rapid Transit Project Team has a preferred rapid transit system for Waterloo Region. Now we need your input!

A Light Rail Transit (LRT) system from Conestoga Mall in Waterloo to the Ainslie Street Terminal in Cambridge provides the best long-term, environmentally sustainable solution to help manage our community’s future growth and transportation needs. An LRT system will also best support the Region’s growth management goals and deliver the most benefits. Implementing the system in stages to meet ridership demand and growth potential provides the best balance of costs and benefits.

Those are the key recommendations from the Region’s Rapid Transit Project Team – and an expert review panel who reviewed the findings – based on the results of three years of study and evaluation as part of the Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment. The most recent study, a Multiple Account Evaluation, measured the benefits and costs associated with four different rapid transit systems.

Based on the results of the study, the recommended Stage 1 includes:
- Light Rail Transit (LRT) from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall in Kitchener
- Adapted Bus Rapid Transit (aBRT) from Fairview Park Mall in Kitchener to Ainslie Street Terminal in Cambridge

You are invited to attend one of the upcoming public meetings and have your say about these recommendations.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 from 2 to 8 p.m.
at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church
54 Queen St. N., Kitchener
Public parking is available at Queen and Ahrens streets and is free after 6 p.m. Please do not park in the church lot.
Thursday, May 21, 2009 from 2 to 8 p.m.
at the United Kingdom Club
35 International Village Dr., Cambridge
Located across from Dunbar Road and the Cambridge Centre Transit Terminal.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 from 2 to 8 p.m.
at First United Church
16 William St., Waterloo
Public parking is available off of Caroline Street. Please do not park in the church lot.

These meetings are served by Grand River Transit. For route information, visit www.grt.ca or call 519-585-7555. These events are accessible for people with disabilities. If you require assistance to participate in this meeting, or to access information in alternate formats, please contact the Rapid Transit Infoline at least five days prior to the meeting you plan to attend. For more information, please contact us at the Rapid Transit Infoline:
519-575-4757 ext.3242
TTY: 519-575-4609
rtinfo@region.waterloo.on.ca
www.region.waterloo.on.ca/transitea

Another way to have your say! www.region.waterloo.on.ca/transitea
The Region invites you to participate in iEngage, the newly launched consultation portal on the rapid transit website. New and interactive features on the site are designed to make it easier for you to join in. These features include a discussion board, regular polls, a photo gallery to view and share rapid transit photos, an improved video viewer and a hot topics space to catch up on the latest project announcements and details.

The Rapid Transit Team will also be at several community events this spring. Stop by our booth and chat with a staff member about the project.

Where to Visit The Rapid Transit Team this Spring:
Uptown Public Square Opening Ceremony
May 30, 2009
at King Street and Willis Way, Waterloo
Cambridge Riverfest
June 6, 2009
at Riverbluffs Park, George Street, Cambridge
KW Multicultural Festival
June 20 and 21, 2009
at Victoria Park, Kitchener


Waterloo Region's $790-million question
May 09, 2009 - THE RECORD
http://news.therecord.com/article/534424

To build or not to build, that is the question.

In just over a month, Waterloo Region will make one of the most momentous decisions in its history. In late June, regional politicians will decide whether or not a $790-million rapid transit system of electric trains and fast buses should link Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge and reshape this community forever.

It is a bold plan that the region's leaders have in their hands. It is a visionary plan. It is a hugely expensive plan. And, no surprise, it's already highly controversial.

Some critics argue there's simply not enough demand for what could be the biggest and most expensive public works project ever undertaken here. They say the 31,000 people expected to ride the rapid transit system daily when it would open in 2014 represent too small a fraction of the overall population to justify the project's enormous cost.

Others reject building a light rail transit line from Waterloo to south Kitchener in favour of starting with a much less costly system of rapid buses running along the Cambridge-to-Waterloo corridor. Nor has it gone unnoticed that the north half of the region would, according to the proposal going to regional council, get sleek, state-of-the-art trains while Cambridge would, initially at least, have to rely on rapid buses.

But the advocates of a combination of light rail trains and buses say this project is not just about moving people around. It is about building the regional community. It is about planning for a 45 per cent population growth that would see 729,000 people living in the region in 2031. It is, in other words, not just about trains, tracks and buses. It is about the future.

These proponents of rapid transit have a strong case to make, one that deserves full and fair consideration. And they are right that this is not just a transportation issue.

The Ontario government has designated Waterloo Region as an area of growth. Unless that policy changes, unless people stop coming to southern Ontario from across Canada and around the world, Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge will grow and change in ways that will make them very different places in the coming decades. In the corridor that would be served by this rapid transit system, the population is expected to grow by 100,000 people in the next 22 years.

Where will all these people live? How will they get around? The provincial government has declared that the cities of Waterloo Region must build more densely populated urban cores. But regional officials warn that, without better public transit, they would have to build eight more lanes of road capacity through the cities to handle the population growth. And there is no room to do that.

This rapid transit system might not be needed in 2009. However, it might be absolutely crucial to having three vibrant, livable, thriving cities in Waterloo Region in 2031. It could mean that our highways are not jammed and that our air is not so heavily polluted. It could mean we are, at long last, controlling and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

For the people living here then, a rapid transit system, based heavily if not entirely on electric trains, could be as essential to the community as the Conestoga Parkway is to it today. And it's worth remembering that there were many vocal opponents to that expressway when it was built 40 years ago.

This newspaper supports a rapid transit system for Waterloo Region. Exactly what that system should look like is something we can only decide after more careful study of a weighty report released yesterday at regional headquarters. It would also help to know how much federal and provincial government commitments to this endeavour are worth in actual cash.

What we can say is that this is the most important matter facing the 500,000 citizens of this region today. We urge the people of this region, the people who will use and pay much of the cost for whatever transit system is created, to become informed. We call on the people of this region to consider the kind of community, the kind of neighbourhood and the kind of home they want five, 10, even 22 years from now. And we invite the people of this region to join in the discussion, the debate and the decision-making.

What we are deciding is nothing less than what we want to become.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Local rapid transit "a smart move," provincial finance minister tells Record
May 11, 2009
Jeff Outhit, Record staff
Web edition
WATERLOO REGION — Ontario will meet its pledge to help pay for local rapid transit, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan says.

http://media.therecord.topscms.com/images/65/81/c07f4b1c4320ab68756d732046f4.jpeg
Provincial finance minister Dwight Duncan, shown in a meeting with The Record's editorial board on Monday afternoon.

“I think it’s a smart move,” he said today in an interview with The Record's editorial board. “Public transit is absolutely the way to go. It’s environmentally friendly. It’s cost-effective over time. It’s a substantial investment. But it is the future.”

Regional council is considering spending $790 million on electric trains in Kitchener and Waterloo and fast buses in Cambridge. Region's $790M rapid-transit proposal

In its 2008 budget, Ontario vowed to pay up to two-thirds of rapid transit costs. This would translate into provincial funding of up to $530 million.

“I don’t want to give a dollar figure right now, beyond saying that the undertaking that was in the budget remains,” Duncan said.

Duncan expects the federal government will also help pay the bill.


Cambridge transit gets short shrift, mayor says
May 13, 2009
Jeff Outhit, RECORD STAFF - WATERLOO REGION
http://news.therecord.com/article/536166

Cambridge politicians may oppose the $790-million rapid-transit system favoured by most regional councillors.

"I don't agree with what I'm seeing," Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig said yesterday, after the plan was unveiled before councillors. He's irked Cambridge will only get fast buses costing $80 million while Kitchener and Waterloo will get electric trains costing $710 million.

Craig warned that council needs to sell the plan to Cambridge residents.

Coun. Claudette Millar, also of Cambridge, is bothered the plan has no date to extend electric trains to her city.

Planners contend Cambridge lacks the passengers and redevelopment opportunities to justify trains that would cost $639 million to install there.

North Dumfries Mayor Kim Denouden can't see why Cambridge councillors are bothered about getting better buses. "I think this is a win situation."

Chair Ken Seiling said the transit plan was always meant to launch in Kitchener and Waterloo, with a future route for Cambridge.

Putting Cambridge into the first stage is actually a step forward, he contends. "I see that as a glass half-full," Seiling said.

Buses in Cambridge would drive in mixed traffic with special features to speed them past congestion, such as bypass shoulders, queue-jump lanes, and priority over signals.

Complaints out of Cambridge appear to be the leading concerns about rapid transit, as it heads to a June 24 council vote. A majority of 16 council members say they favour the plan as a reurbanization scheme, intended to draw more homes and jobs to urban neighbourhoods around stations.

"It's not primarily a people-mover," said Coun. Jim Wideman of Kitchener. "It's a way for us to attract redevelopment."

"I think it's the right thing to do for the community," Wilmot Mayor Wayne Roth said.

Denouden, who is undecided, said some North Dumfries residents have told her the money is better spent on roads. "We're a car community."

Construction on rapid transit could start in 2012.

“Our money is committed,” he said. “We need a federal presence there, as we do on all these major projects. I’m quite certain it will be there. The question is, how much?”

In 2008, the federal and provincial governments identified rapid transit in Kitchener and Waterloo as “initial priorities” for shared infrastructure funding.

Regional Chair Ken Seiling was pleased to hear that Duncan is supportive. “That’s good news,” he said. “I’m feeling good about the project.”

Regional council is six weeks away from endorsing the proposal it unveiled four days ago.

Seiling disagrees that this is a speedy review. He points to a transit study under way since 2005 that has included public input into routes and technologies.

“I don’t recall ever a process where there’s been as much public participation,” he said.

The proposal calls for electric trains on dedicated tracks, displacing traffic between the Conestoga mall in Waterloo and the Fairview Park mall in Kitchener. Fast buses would drive in mixed traffic between the Kitchener mall and the Ainslie Street terminal in the Galt core of Cambridge.

It’s proposed as a way to draw homes and jobs to the urban spine of the region, heading to a population of 729,000 by 2031.

Council intends to approve the project by June 24, in order to secure provincial approval by December and launch the system by 2014.

Operating rapid transit would consume an $11-million annual subsidy at launch, planners say. This amount is the equivalent of hiking regional taxes by just over three per cent.

Property tax impacts are to be released next month.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Waterloo's train to nowhere
Posted: January 29, 2010, 8:00 AM by NP Editor
Peter Shawn Taylor, Canadian politcs
National Post
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/29/peter-shawn-taylor-waterloo-s-train-to-nowhere.aspx

Today is the day the taps are supposed to be shut off. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised that his government’s massive $40-billion stimulus plan — with its $12-billion in infrastructure spending and $8-billion for housing — will come to an end now. Whatever hasn’t been allocated yet gets taken off the table.

With the spending orgy done, Ottawa claims it will now turn its focus to getting the federal budget back in the black. Some observers see Harper’s appointment of fiscal conservative Stockwell Day to the Treasury Board as a sign the party is well and truly over. We’ll see.

Since the Tories have spent the past year as the most spendthrift government this country has ever seen, it seems a big ask for Ottawa to revert to tightwad status overnight.

Of course the biggest problem with going from spending to cutting is that it’s far more enjoyable for politicians to make voters happy than it is to disappoint them. And even before the economic crisis the Tories were rather liberal when it came to spending on favoured demographics.

From a taxpayer’s perspective, it’s difficult to tell whether a switch has actually been made: There are significant time lags in reporting Ottawa’s financial situation and the spin can often be confusing. So how will we really know if today’s deadline marks a change in federal behaviour?

We need a quick method of checking the federal government’s commitment to austerity. Fortunately we have just such a thing. It’s called the Region of Waterloo Rapid Transit Project Business Case.

Waterloo Region, a municipality in southwestern Ontario comprising the cities of Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge, is home to a vibrant technology sector dominated by the University of Waterloo and BlackBerry-maker RIM. The population is around 500,000.

Like many smaller urban centres that dream big, local councillors figure the quickest way to grandeur is to build themselves a light rail transit (LRT) system. Last summer they voted overwhelmingly to approve an LRT on King Street, the region’s main north-south corridor.

But like many big schemes, the LRT only seems like a good idea if someone else is paying for it. The region’s plan for the $819-million tab is to ask the federal and provincial governments to split it. Ontario will pay the bulk, but Ottawa’s share is a not-insignificant $256-million.

The business case justifying this proposal has been submitted to both governments and an answer is expected in a few weeks or months. Then we’ll know if Ottawa is serious about cutting spending.

That’s because by any practical metric, Waterloo Region’s LRT makes absolutely no sense. If Ottawa approves this proposal, we will well and truly know its newly claimed commitment to fiscal prudence is a sham.

LRTs are meant to serve large metropolitan cities with high-volume commuter traffic heading to downtown employment cores. Waterloo Region lacks it all: population, commuters and a downtown.

As an amalgam of three distinct cities, Waterloo Region actually has no downtown core to speak of. Most RIM employees work in numerous buildings scattered across the suburbs, making them unlikely to take transit. By way of comparison, the smallest city in Canada with an existing LRT is Edmonton. It has a metropolitan population twice that of Waterloo Region and a downtown commuter employment base that’s five times larger.

In order to justify its business plan, the region has heroically assumed transit ridership along the route will triple immediately once train service begins. This presumes more LRT riders in Waterloo Region than currently exist in Minneapolis, a city of three million people.

Oh, and another thing. Waterloo Region’s LRT will be two minutes slower than the existing bus service. That’s right, $819-million buys a new transit system that isn’t quite as fast as what’s already there.

The only thing the LRT has going for it is politics. Smaller-centre urban Ontario is fertile ground for the federal Conservatives and Waterloo Region boasts four Tory MPs. Significantly, the closest race in the last federal election saw rookie Conservative candidate Peter Braid shock longtime Liberal MP Andrew Telegdi by 17 votes in the well-heeled riding of Kitchener-Waterloo.

So it’s no surprise Conservatives are keen to demonstrate their love for the region as often as possible. The day after municipal councillors approved the LRT, another local Tory MP, Gary Goodyear, claimed his government was ready to pay its share, no questions asked.

Yet it’s obvious there’s no way Waterloo Region’s LRT request for $256-million can withstand serious scrutiny with fiscal prudence as a criteria.

If the federal government does come through on this request, it will stand as an instant and unmistakable sign that political calculations have trumped any claims to austerity. It will also open the door for other similarly sized municipalities — Hamilton, London, Quebec City, Halifax — to demand LRTs of their own.

The decision on Waterloo Region’s LRT will set a precedent in many ways. Every taxpayer in the country should be watching this train’s schedule.

Peter Shawn Taylor is editor-at-large with Maclean’s magazine. He lives in Waterloo Region and is a member of the local group Taxpayers for Sensible Transit.


Train within nowhere
by Paul Wells on Friday, January 29, 2010 2:53pm
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/29/train-within-nowhere/

Peter Shawn Taylor has found a transit project so questionable I actually think even I wouldn’t support it: a light rail transit system in the Waterloo, Ont. downtown core.

I’ll let Peter (who often writes editorials, and sometimes articles, for us here at Maclean’s) make his argument for himself. Basically the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge triangle is so diffuse there’s no critical mass of LRT ridership. Peter, being a good fiscal hawk, sees this as reason enough not to support any kind of big marquee transit project within Waterloo. I, on the other hand, am an extreme left-wing infrastructure empire-builder, so I have a fallback proposition. What KW really needs is a dramatically expanded transit system for getting people to and from the tri-city area. I believe there are two VIA milk runs per day from Toronto, and they take more than two hours to make the one-hour trip. Even by the existing standards of Go Transit, that’s nonsensical.

High-speed rail to KW, then? Not necessarily. Tripling the standard Via run would be nice. Opening a Go line would be nice. Even opening a dedicated lane on the highway and running a shuttle-bus service would help. Peter, who lives in Waterloo, is skeptical of its City-of-the-Future! self-image. I visit the region frequently enough to strongly suspect it really does have growth potential. But not if it remains hard to get at. So take some of the money that was going to go to LRT within Waterloo and use it for modest but real transit improvements between Toronto and KW. Yes? No? Discuss.

[UrbanWaterloo]

I'll come back & fill in this thread properly, but I had to get these articles up to make a basic response. Obviously I completely disagree with their position. Here's 3 reasons why they're wrong:

1) Transit Ridership Growth - Grand River Transit



1996 - 9.1 million
1999 - 9.4 million
2000 - 9.9 million
2001 - 10.1 million
2002 - 10.4 million (approx.)
2003 - 10.9 million
2004 - 11.5 million (approx.)
2005 - 12.7 million
2006 - 13.7 million
2007 - 14.4 million
2008 - 15.8 million
2009 - 16.3 million (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/649922)
2010 - 16.9 million (goal)
2016 - 21.5 million (goal)


2) Population Growth - Region of Waterloo Population Estimates



http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Misc/Row2008Year-endPopulation-Long-term.jpg
2031 - 729,000 (Places to Grow)


3) Urban Growth - Real Estate Statistics



Fourth Quarter 2004 - http://www.kitchener.ca/pdf/downtown_monitoring_report.pdf
Kitchener Core Inventory: 2,244,200 Square Feet
Kitchener Core Vacancy Rate: 13.7%

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Misc/CBRE-WaterlooRegionOfficeMarketV-1.jpg

Fourth Quarter 2009
http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Misc/CBRE-WaterlooRegionOfficeMarketView.jpg


Phrased a bit differently:
Occupied Space in Kitchener's Core
Forth Quarter 2004: 1,936,744.6 square feet
Forth Quarter 2009: 2,219,410.9 square feet
Increased Occupied Space in Kitchener's Core over 5 Years: 282,666.3 square feet (an amount larger than the entire Galleria complex - 236,251 sq ft)

[Spokes]

Well not really any arguments that haven't been presented (and shut down) before. Nothing new.

So hypothetically, if the Feds, or the Province, say no to funding, then what?

[Spokes]

A new journal has just been released - The Journal of Public Transit in Ottawa - and in their first issue, they talk about the Waterloo Region LRT proposal - check it out http://transitottawa.sslpowered.com/transitottawa.ca/JPTO_Vol1_W2010.pdf (p.4)

[Ktown4ever]

A great Op-Ed appeared yesterday in the National Post...

Jeffrey M. Casello: Train to a sustainable future
Posted: February 18, 2010, 10:30 AM by NP Editor
Jeffrey M. Casello
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/18/jeffrey-m-casello-train-to-a-sustainable-future.aspx

Recently, the Region of Waterloo’s proposal to construct a Light Rail Transit (LRT) system was described in a National Post column (Train to nowhere, Peter Shawn Taylor, Jan. 29) as “Waterloo’s train to nowhere.” The criticism suggested that LRTs are only viable in large cities, with concentrated employment and a large number of commuting trips. As someone who has studied, planned and designed transportation systems for two decades, I contend these assertions are wrong.

To claim that Waterloo Region with a population of about 500,000 — but projected to grow to 730,000 — is “too small” for LRT is simplistic. In Germany, 23 cities with populations less than 400,000 have successful LRT systems totaling more than 1,000 km!

To assess LRT suitability based solely on population and employment is naive. Consider the examples of Cleveland and Buffalo. Cleveland’s population is about one-and-a-half times that of Buffalo; Cleveland’s LRT system is almost two-and-a-half times as long. But, Buffalo’s LRT system carries about four times more riders per day than Cleveland’s system.

Arguing that LRT can only service a single downtown demonstrates failure to understand modern urban form. Cities no longer have single downtowns, but more commonly have “activity centres” — areas of concentrated employment and population. Transportation planning emphasizes providing capacity within these activity centres and on the corridors that connect them.

Unlike many sprawling cities, Waterloo is well-positioned because currently the Region’s activity centres occur along a linear, transit-friendly alignment, known as the central transit corridor (CTC) where LRT is proposed. Moreover, plans are in place to guide much of the future growth towards the CTC. Working within the Province’s “Place to Grow” legislation, the Region’s Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) limits the amount of low-density development away from the CTC through regulation and targeted infrastructure investments.

The real estate market has already responded to the emphasis on the CTC. Two factories have been converted to major residential/retail complexes. An additional $250-million development will contain 1,000 residential units, a hotel, and more than 230,000 square feet of offices. The region’s two universities have academic buildings away from their primary campuses but along the CTC.

In addition to the land use changes, Waterloo Region has embraced public transportation. From 1999 to 2009, the regional population has grown by about 18% while transit ridership has increased by more than 90% to 16.4 million rides annually.

The fact is that in Waterloo Region there exists a young and urban population — fuelled by the presence of universities, colleges and high-tech industries — for whom the possibility of living with fewer or no cars is very appealing. The presence of an LRT increases the ability to attract this demographic and advances the region’s economic competitiveness in the national and global communities.

Regarding the cost of construction, $790-million dollars is a vast sum of public funds with which great care must be taken. Criticism presented against the LRT system suggests that, in the absence of LRT, no transportation subsidies will be necessary. This is false. The LRT eliminates the need to plan, build and maintain many lane kilometres of roadways that come at extraordinary costs, particularly as the region’s cities grow.

Critics also suggest that buses could provide service in the CTC at much lower cost. But buses do not compare well with LRT in terms of their ability to move large volumes of passengers. One bus (with one driver) can move about 75 persons while one LRT (with one driver) can move about 480. As demand grows, the labour costs associated with a bus system grow much faster. Currently, there are about 700,000 daily trips involving the central transit corridor. With the growth in the CTC and the pattern of increasing transit usage, a bus system will soon become insufficient to meet demand and much more expensive to operate. For evidence of this problem, one can look to Ottawa’s busway system which is now over capacity and suffering major congestion. Further, LRT systems can be better integrated with high volumes of pedestrians and cyclists than buses and have demonstrated much stronger impacts on land use patterns.

The Waterloo proposal is not a train to nowhere. It is a train which, when combined with many land use and transportation changes, will lead a growing and progressive region toward an environmentally sustainable future, with a vibrant economy and enhanced quality of life for all its residents. The work being done in the Region of Waterloo is forward thinking and exemplary — a model for Ontario and Canada — and should certainly be considered amongst the other very high priority candidate projects for provincial and federal funding. The attempted derailment of this important project is simply based in too little fact.

National Post

Jeffrey M. Casello is an associate professor of transportation planning and engineering at the University of Waterloo. He authored the transit planning chapter in the Institute for Transportation Engineer’s Transportation Planning Handbook. He has acted as a transit consultant to many U.S. and Canadian cities.

[RangersFan]

awesome article, nice to see Waterloo's LRT get some positive press. We need more people to start flooding local media with pro LRT letters.

[RangersFan]

Out of curiosity I visited T4ST facebook page, not only is there alot of mis-information on there but some people have down right hatred for this project. I don't want to be mean or anything but this is an example of what progressive thought is up against here

"have been supporters of T4ST before it was T4ST...thanks to all who are trying to bring "Sensible Transit" to our area rather than LRT, which will be a bigger disaster than RIM park...for generations...as well as destroying much of our heritage & environment !!!"

Destroying the environment?
Let me get this straight they hate RIM park which is a wonderful nature sancturary in the area(that not only provides a protected nature area as well as a valuable hertiage walk), which I know has received alot of negative press due to all the fraudulent behaviour that went on but thats another issue entirely and then next say an efficient public transit system will ruin the environment. Am I the one who is missing something here?

[jay]

Well if the federal government and provincial fund this then it doesn't really matter what they think. It already passed and I doubt after what happened in Ottawa they will cancel it halfway though.

It's ridiculous some of the comments i see, like the one posted above. What happens is that the people who support it don't take a public stand. Only the negative people, and I bet the city always sees these people and don't they really care what they say when they are behind closed doors. Sounds bad but it's probably true. IMO this project is so big that the people who support it in the region/goverment will make this work so it gives them a legacy.

I hope we get a announcement by the summer about the funding. I am assuming the stimulus money for this has been set aside.

[Ktown4ever]

High Speeds, High Costs, Hidden Benefits: A Broader Perspective on High-Speed Rail

http://www.martinprosperity.org/insights/insight/high-speeds-high-costs-hidden-benefits-a-broader-perspective-on-high-speed-rail

[jay]

Our transportation system needs re-thinking
February 24, 2010
BY JEFFREY M. CASELLO
http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/Editorials/article/675056

While many recent Record articles have addressed aspects of transportation such as sidewalks, cycling, parking and rapid transit, what has not been discussed is how these individual proposals, when integrated, would create a transportation system to best serve Waterloo Region.

After the Second World War, transportation planning in North America revolved around the car. Roads were built through cities with wide travel lanes and shoulders intended to maximize auto speeds. Intersections were built to keep car delays short, but were unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians.

Policies favourable to the automobile were implemented. To attract workers, employers provided free parking and received tax incentives to do so. Common errands more frequently required longer car trips to the remote suburban grocery.

The evidence is clear that serious problems exist with a transportation system that concentrates only on cars. An auto-dependent society discriminates against those who cannot drive for financial, age-related or physical reasons. It limits economic competitiveness, damages the environment, and contributes to increasing obesity. The separation of commercial and residential activities in a community meant that for every activity — be it taking children to day care or sports, or even picking up the dry cleaning — a longer-than-necessary auto trip is required.

Contemporary transportation planning advocates for creating balanced transportation systems in which infrastructure investments and public policy allow and encourage all travel choices. Active transportation — that is, walking and cycling — as well as public transit and the car should be available so that individuals may choose the mode that best meets their needs. In order to encourage the shorter trips suited to walking, cycling or transit, planners recognize we should not only allow, but encourage, the development of commercial activities convenient to residential locations.

Waterloo Region is an international leader in applying contemporary transportation and land-use policies. When I arrived in Waterloo, I discovered a progressive regional growth management strategy, and more importantly I found an engaged society discussing how this strategy allows for choices in housing, economic opportunities and transportation alternatives.

The implementation of the strategy involves incrementally improving all modes of travel in the region, including car travel. But improvements for cars are now designed so that the resulting infrastructure is appropriate for its location, but does not eliminate other modes.

Many of the region’s roadways will be redesigned to increase capacity, although fewer will be reconstructed to allow for increased speeds that would make cycling and walking less safe.

The centerpiece of the region’s transportation planning involves construction of a rapid transit system, which would provide a very high passenger capacity on a moderate-to-high speed travel system which is entirely supportive of walking, cycling and conventional transit modes. Light rail transit would not eliminate auto travel, just offer another transportation option.

Critics of the proposed transits system say that Canadians love their cars, and will continue to use them. And, it’s been argued that the region’s populations and employment levels are too small to support mass transit.

The critics are wrong

The North American love affair with the car is based upon a grave misunderstanding of transportation and land-use planning. In most cases, Canadians do not love their cars. We’ve adapted to the lack of transportation choices that have been imposed upon us for decades. We’ve been further encouraged to consider car-only travel by huge subsidies, particularly free parking.

To claim that the region is too small for light rail transit is also incorrect. In Germany, 23 cities smaller than this region have successful light rail transit systems that run for more than 1,000 kilometres. Germans don’t ride transit more than Canadians because of some German cultural trait. The differences arise because, in general, European cities have been planned and designed with transportation systems not exclusively for the car. These cities emphasize pedestrians and cycling and have made major investments in transit infrastructure, while pricing car use more effectively.

We have a choice. We can continue our auto-dominated planning under the false assumptions that Canadians will not walk, cycle or use transit. We can continue only to widen and build new roadways that come with tremendous construction and maintenance costs which, in time, will eclipse the cost of a rapid transit system. We can exclude non-driving members of society and degrade our environment and regional character.

Or, we can invest in our future on a path toward sustainable, balanced transportation and land use. We can improve auto travel while, at the same time, greatly enhancing other options. We can provide residents a choice of housing types and locations that allow families to reduce their transportation costs by, for example, travelling shorter distances or owning fewer cars. Ultimately, through balanced transportation, we can advance a livable, viable region that promotes a diversified economy and quality of life for all residents at a lower cost to government and society.

Jeffrey M. Casello is a professional engineer and an associate professor of transportation planning and engineering at the University of Waterloo. He authored the transit planning chapter in the Institute for Transportation Engineers’ transportation planning handbook, and has acted as a transit consultant to many U.S. and Canadian cities.

[RangersFan]

great find Bauer,

[jay]

Public transit or a free car? The choice should be obvious

March 04, 2010
By Peter Shawn Taylor

Welcome to our 2010 Waterloo Region commuter challenge quiz.

If you currently take the bus and cannot afford a car, would you prefer:

a) an $819 million light rail transit/rapid bus network running from a shopping mall in Waterloo to a transit station in Cambridge, or

b) a new car?

Obviously the best choice would be c): none of the above. But if we absolutely must spend almost a billion dollars on transportation for low-income residents of Waterloo Region, we ought to spend that money wisely and efficiently. On cars.

Any coherent discussion of public transit in Waterloo Region has to begin with the fact that we operate our transit system largely for the benefit of students and the poor.

This should be obvious to anyone who rides the buses. For additional evidence, a recent regional report notes that over half the riders on Grand River Transit have incomes below $20,000 per year. Those earning below $10,000 represent the single biggest cohort. “Riders tend to be younger and earn less than the rest of the population,” understates the report.

A separate study shows that almost two-thirds of ridership growth lately has come from university students who now receive a bus pass with their tuition.

As Record columnist Jeff Outhit recently observed, the overwhelming evidence that transit use is dominated by low-income and student riders suggests that Grand River Transit “functions as a social service.” Its main purpose is to provide transportation for local residents who can’t afford cars.

It therefore seems reasonable to assume the region’s $819-million light rail transit system will attract a similar clientele. Low-income residents and students will use it. Taxpayers who never ride it will pay for it. But is this sort of massive investment in public transit an effective form of social assistance?

In fact there’s substantial academic evidence to show that public transit is a very ineffective way of helping the poor. While students may be well served by existing bus service, reliance on public transit is a major barrier to employment for low-income or unemployed adults. Using the bus or train is a disadvantage for the poor.

In 2002 University of California urban planner Evelyn Blumenberg found that residents in the poor Watts neighbourhood of Los Angeles could access 59 times more job openings with a car than via public transit. This result is due to the inflexibility of transit schedules and the geographic location of jobs.

The more job openings you can access, the better your chances of finding a job that suits your skills. And nothing beats a car for getting around.

Here in Waterloo Region, the light rail system will run along the central King Street corridor, which is already well-served by buses. Spending $819 million on it will not make any more existing jobs accessible for low-income residents.

Another U.S. study found the employment rate for car owners was 80 per cent; for those without a car, it was 53 per cent. And there is a clear causal link at work: having a car increases your chances of finding a job.

Among high school drop-outs, having a car is as important to future job prospects as having a diploma. On the other hand, use of public transit is associated with higher levels of absenteeism and lateness.

Blumenberg also found that public transit was particularly problematic for single mothers who must arrange trips to work, daycare and shopping around unforgiving transit schedules and stops.

Taken together, the research shows that having to rely on public transit is a significant difficulty for low-income individuals and families. Many charities already recognize this fact. In London, Ont., the local Goodwill provides a van shuttle service to help unemployed clients find and keep work. In the U.S. organizations such as Good News Garage match single mothers with donated cars so they have an alternative to frustrating public transit.

Some U.S. states, including Massachusetts, have gone so far as to give certain welfare recipients a free car since it greatly improves their chances of finding a job and getting off social assistance. These programs tend to be controversial with taxpayers, however, for obvious reasons.

Yet when set against massive new investments in light rail transit, the free car option looks positively austere.

In 2004 two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis crunched the numbers on a transit situation similar to Waterloo Region. Molly Castelazo and Thomas Garrett examined the massive annual subsidies and government grants required to build and operate St. Louis’ costly MetroLink light rail transit system and found it would have been cheaper to give every low-income rail rider a new car every five years.

Providing a free Toyota Prius to all transit users below the poverty line (plus US$6,000 a year in operating expenses) would cost taxpayers US$50 million a year less than running the money-losing MetroLink. Plus the car recipients would have a better chance of finding work. The environmental impact would be minimal given the Prius’ low-emissions. The bus system would still operate. And the net increase in road congestion would be just 0.5 percent.

So how many cars could Waterloo Region buy for $819 million?

Peter Shawn Taylor of Waterloo is an editor-at-large with Maclean’s magazine.


*shakes head* I don't even know where to begin on this. He also assumes that people who currently own a car can afford it. Also just because the Prius has good emissions doesn't mean jack it still produces emissions on a lesser scale. Not giving people another option is not the to go. It baffles me the Record prints his letters. Must be because he works at Maclean's ..

[Spokes]

Wow.....that's.....special...

I wonder how all those below the poverty line will be able to pay for the insurance for their new Prius. Especially because from what I hear, insurance is higher on hybrids (can anyone confirm or deny)

[van Hemessen]

Is that article for real?

Author must be from London.

[Spokes]

It's just baffling that we print SO MUCH of this stuff, but so little "pro" news or much that is progressive for that matter. Its time for a 2nd KW newspaper.

[plam]

I wonder how all those below the poverty line will be able to pay for the insurance for their new Prius. Especially because from what I hear, insurance is higher on hybrids (can anyone confirm or deny)

I don't know about insurance, but I seem to spend $2k/year on car maintenance. And I don't even drive my car around the city much; I just use it to leave town.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Another article which doesn't look at a full cost analysis.

It's Not:


$819 million LRT vs. $819 million Car Give-A-Way

But More Like:


$819 million LRT vs. $819 million Car Give-A-Way + $2 billion Increased Road Maintenance & Expansion

or

$819 million vs. $2819 million

Seems like LRT is financially cheaper, not to mention the host of other benefits.

[Spokes]

I don't know about insurance, but I seem to spend $2k/year on car maintenance. And I don't even drive my car around the city much; I just use it to leave town.

On a NEW hybrid?? Wow.

[plam]

On a NEW hybrid?? Wow.

Not a new car or a hybrid. It's a 2003 car (sure, it's not quite the comparison that the article author was writing about, but I have a hard time imagining giving out new cars, and they become old cars soon enough.)

[Spokes]

Not a new car or a hybrid. It's a 2003 car (sure, it's not quite the comparison that the article author was writing about, but I have a hard time imagining giving out new cars, and they become old cars soon enough.)

Ya but still thats a lot of repairs on a 7 year old car.

[Brenden]

Its time for a 2nd KW newspaper.

From what I hear... their might not be a KW Record in a few months.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

From what I hear... their might not be a KW Record in a few months.

Where did you hear that?

[Spokes]

From what I hear... their might not be a KW Record in a few months.

Can you give any more details?

[Brenden]

Nothing that I can confirm... just observation and speculation from a few employees I know.

[Spokes]

Ahh gotcha. Id be a bit surprised given they have no competition.

Im curious in this age of digital media, if lots of newspapers are hurting financially

[uptownfoodcritic]

The answer to that question is yes. Especially in smaller markets. And whether or not you want to believe it, K-W is a very small market.

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

Our Regional Transit Becomes National Issue
War of words over LRT erupts in National Post

By Travis Myers | University of Waterloo Imprint | February 26, 2010

The current state of public transit in Waterloo Region came to the attention of many more Canadians in recent weeks, mainly due to an editorial in the National Post by local writer and commentator Peter Shawn Taylor.

The editorial wasted no time in calling out the proposed Light Rail Transit (LRT) system as “Waterloo's train to nowhere,” echoing fiscal conservative decries against Sarah Palin from her time as the Governor of Alaska in his January 29 article.

Taylor believes that Waterloo Region's LRT plan acts as a sort of economic barometer for the rest of the nation in terms of the government's plan to cut back on spending in the wake of the stimulus plan.

The $819-million tab is Taylor's biggest point of contention, as he is certain that an unofficial pledge of $256-million from the federal Conservatives is taxpayer money being used for political posturing in our area, one that has recently become a fledgling Conservative holding.

“Waterloo Region's LRT makes absolutely no sense. If Ottawa approves this proposal, we will well and truly know its newly claimed commitment to fiscal prudence is a sham,” said Taylor.

In addition to the price tag, he also finds issue with the Region's population in comparison to other cities with urban rail and the expectation of ridership growth upon completion.

Taylor is hardly the definitive voice on the issue of Light Rail in Waterloo (although he has drawn support from Paul Wells), and much like the chorus of differing opinions about the project here in the community, another local academic turned up in the National Post's February 18 edition to express his support for the plan.

The University of Waterloo's own transportation planning professor, author and transit planning consultant Jeffrey Casello, wrote his own editorial to rebutt Taylor's stance against the project.

On the issue of population, Waterloo's projected future puts it at almost twice the size of the over 20 German cities with operating LRT systems, said Casello.

He also calls out the concept that in the absence of an LRT system the current bus system would suffice as false, as many students and community members who have been left behind on overcrowded buses already know.

“...Buses do not compare well with LRT in terms of their ability to move large volumes of passengers. One bus (with one driver) can move about 75 persons while one LRT (with one driver) can move about 480,” said Casello.

While Waterloo Region projects its image to the rest of Ontario and Canada as the city of the future, priding themselves on recent track record and potential for development, it is interesting to see this bit of local dirty laundry aired out in the national media.

In this perspective, Taylor's assertion is that Waterloo has set its focus so firmly on the future that the present state of the Region has been forgotten.

Casello counters that the present is just as requiring of LRT as the future, and now is the time to be thinking about both.


http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/2010/feb/26/news/our-regional-transit-becomes-national-issue/ (http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/2010/feb/26/news/our-regional-transit-becomes-national-issue/)

[jay]

Is there a timeline on when to expect a announcement on weather or not the Federal Government will fund this?

[mpd618]

Is there a timeline on when to expect a announcement on weather or not the Federal Government will fund this?

Well, the provincial assessment of the project is probably going to be another 4-5 months. I think the expectation is that provincial and federal announcements will happen within that timeframe, or after the provincial green light.

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

Doesn't the 2010-2011 Provincial budget come out this week? Maybe we will hear at least some speculation or hint in that.

[Spokes]

I believe you're right about the budget. Good idea. I hope you're right.

Maybe they'll announce GO funding as well.

[garthdanlor]

Does anyone know if the budget cuts/delays to Transit City in Toronto that were announced in the recent provincial budget have any affect on the Waterloo Regional LRT plan?

[mpd618]

Does anyone know if the budget cuts/delays to Transit City in Toronto that were announced in the recent provincial budget have any affect on the Waterloo Regional LRT plan?

The cuts were to Metrolinx and the bus replacement program. Metrolinx cuts might affect GO expansion to Kitchener, but I don't believe the budget has any information either way on Waterloo Region's light rail capital funding.

[RangersFan]

Up in the air

Rapid transit funding from province and federal government still on hold
By Greg MacDonald, Chronicle Staff


Apr 14, 2010
Region of Waterloo is still playing the waiting game when it comes to funding for rapid transit.

Last June, council approved a $790-million project to bring on-street rail service to Waterloo and Kitchener and rapid bus service to Cambridge.

But the funding from provincial and federal levels of government hasn’t come, almost a year since the approval.

In the recent provincial budget, the Liberals put off plans for transit expansion in Toronto.

“You can draw some conclusions from the provincial budget,” said Coun. Jim Wideman, the planning and works committee chair.

“There has obviously been some pullback in terms of transit projects. We usually lag Toronto.

“The coffers aren’t as rich as they were and it’s a different day.”

Despite the dreary forecast out of Queen’s Park, regional administration is still optimistic about receiving money from the province.

“We’re still working actively with provincial staff and provincial politicians,” said Mike Murray, the region’s chief administrative officer.

“They continue to be supportive of the project so we continue to be hopeful we’ll get a funding announcement.”

And the province hasn’t pulled out of transit completely, said Ken Seiling.

While some Toronto projects have been delayed, others are still moving ahead. And the province has given cash for a transit project in Ottawa, Seiling said.

As for the federal government, they are waiting for the province to make an announcement, Seiling said.

The discussion about funding occurred last week a debate about the region’s new transportation master plan.

The plan leans heavily on transit measures and Mayor Doug Craig wondered how the municipality could move forward without funding assurances.

“I understand the reasoning for doing this, but my concern is the lack of information with regards to our proposal (for rapid transit),” Craig said.

“We should be able to at least get a timeline. We should be able to find out when we expect to have some answers.”

The province is being coy even about that, Wideman said.

“That question has been asked but hasn’t been answered.”

In the end, all the region can do is continue to encourage action and sit back and wait, Wideman said.

“We don’t know about funding yet and we’re waiting,” he said.

“It’s very frustrating, but it’s reality.”

And while the waiting game goes on, the region is moving as far ahead as it can on other transit plans, Murray said.

“We’re trying to do as much as we can to keep the ball rolling forward,” he said. “We’ve been doing more detailed design since June.”

[jay]

I'm not going to lie, I'm a little nervous that we may not get the funding.

[Urbanomicon]

I'm not going to lie, I'm a little nervous that we may not get the funding.

Somehow this funding delay doesn't surprise me.

My bet is that we'll get the funding come next Provincial Election to try to secure more votes in this area.

[mpd618]

The province should complete its Transit Project Assessment within about two months, and that's when we should expect concrete information about provincial and federal funding. Both levels of government have already talked about wanting to fund this before, so I don't think it would make sense for them to announce anything concrete until this last hurdle is cleared.

[Spokes]

I'm not going to lie, I'm a little nervous that we may not get the funding.

Im not going to lie, I feel the same way.

[smably]

I'm nervous too, but I think it's important that the Region come up with a solid "plan B" in case we don't get the funding for a few more years. (I have no doubt that rapid transit will get funded eventually, but it may be a few years yet.) Even without funding from the province and the feds, we can start beefing up iXpress service to 7.5 minutes or better, reorganize the conventional routes into a grid network, even build an intermodal terminal at King and Victoria. The studies have shown that BRT won't be able to handle passenger volumes in 2031, but it could function well as a short-term measure. Maybe we should start thinking about it.

Light rail will be a really great thing for KW when it gets built, but as T4ST loves to remind us, it's no panacea. So by all means, we need to put the pressure on higher levels of government to come through with the funding, but if they don't give us the money soon we can't afford to sit around and wait until they do.

I guess my point is that light rail part of the long-term solution, but the work we need to do in the short term is almost exactly the same regardless of light rail. Let's not get too hung up on the funding and instead think about all the transportation issues we can solve in the meantime.

[Spokes]

I hope that plan B includes more express lines. Id love to see a grid pattern set up using major corridors running frequent service on them. (some more frequent than others)

[DHLawrence]

That's something that's definitely lacking in Cambridge. the major north-south routes (Highways 8 and 24) have buses, but only a couple of cross-town roads have buses--Dunbar and Langs. When going from Preston to Hespeler, you shouldn't have to chose between taking an hour or making two changes.

Moving some of the major routes away from the Ainslie terminal wouldn't hurt either. Having the majority of the population north of the Delta and the bus station south of the Delta only works for the old money in Galt. Doesn't help the rest of us!

[IEFBR14]

Revise rapid transit plan to save it, Craig urges (http://news.therecord.com/printArticle/711006)
Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig is urging regional council to reconsider cheaper rapid buses, while senior governments remain mum on a request to put $768 million into rail transit.

Local planners had expected a provincial commitment by last December. Craig figures the delay means the cash-strapped province is “backing off” its 2007 pledge to fund two-thirds of local rapid transit.

“This has given us an opportunity to rethink the whole thing,” said Craig, who favours buses over trains. “Go right back to the drawing board.”

Regional Chair Ken Seiling disagrees, saying it would be “foolish” to revise the rail proposal before senior governments say what they are prepared to contribute. “It would be a waste of effort and time,” he said.

Kitchener Centre MPP John Milloy, a cabinet minister, would not say if his Liberal government would smile on a cheaper proposal.

Almost a year has passed since council voted to spend up to $800 million on electric trains and fast buses. Rapid buses would cost up to $585 million by comparison.

The province, facing a steep deficit, has since delayed $4 billion it pledged for similar trains in Toronto.

“Overall, this is a tight economic time,” Milloy said. “But we’ve made a commitment to the project here in the Waterloo Region and we’re having active discussions.”

Milloy would not provide a funding timeline or confirm that his government will contribute $512 million as requested. “Obviously, that’s part of what we’re talking about, what the provincial contribution will be,” he said.

Council is also seeking $256 million from the federal government.

Seiling has met with Premier Dalton McGuinty to lobby him but came away “without a strong sense of what the province’s position will be.”

The controversial urban renewal scheme calls for electric trains to link Kitchener and Waterloo. Fast buses, without dedicated lanes, would link to Cambridge.

Proponents contend trains will bring jobs, homes and commuters to underused urban cores, as the regional population grows to 729,000 by 2031. Critics fear the trains will draw too few passengers in a low-transit community that’s too small and dispersed to support them.

Rail-transit advocate Tim Mollison figures the province lacks the money to commit to funding this year. He expects the rail proposal will eventually be funded.

He also recognizes the proposal could be revised, in a bid to reduce costs. “There are many options that could be explored to sort of break this up into more workable chunks,” said Mollison, of the Tri-Cities Transport Action Group.

For example, a pilot project could see commuter trains launched only on region-owned tracks between downtown Waterloo and Northfield Drive. A single track on this route might be adequate, he said. Trains would meet buses in downtown Waterloo.

He’s uncertain about the merits of limiting commuter trains to single tracks throughout Kitchener and Waterloo. Building fewer tracks could ease construction costs but would require trains to wait at stations or sidings while other trains pass.

“It definitely limits your service frequency,” he said.

[Spokes]

I hope they don't redesign the project until either level of government comes out and says we aren't getting the money. Until that happens just wait.

In the mean time though I think GRT HAS TO evaluate the system. In my mind its a bit un-effecient. There are routes that serve the same purpose. You could eliminate some routes and re-route others to better serve the community and then offer more frequent service. I still think a grid system is very possible in our un-grid like city, and would be very effective.

[KLM]

I hope they don't redesign the project until either level of government comes out and says we aren't getting the money. Until that happens just wait.

In the mean time though I think GRT HAS TO evaluate the system. In my mind its a bit un-effecient. There are routes that serve the same purpose. You could eliminate some routes and re-route others to better serve the community and then offer more frequent service. I still think a grid system is very possible in our un-grid like city, and would be very effective.

you didnt reinvent wheel, GRT is way to outdated ,and huge revision must be done.
They should do that at least 5 years ago ,revising routes and plus take out GRT downtown station.Either close it ,tear it down or renovate and open mixed used develepoment.

We need solution NOW ,if we wait for LRT well pretty much it will be 2020 and we still going to struggle with traffic.

Province is in debt big time, LRT project should not be postponed because of finances, seems we have to do work ourselves, well why not work what we already got? GRT.

[Spokes]

you didnt reinvent wheel, GRT is way to outdated ,and huge revision must be done.
They should do that at least 5 years ago ,revising routes and plus take out GRT downtown station.Either close it ,tear it down or renovate and open mixed used develepoment.

We need solution NOW ,if we wait for LRT well pretty much it will be 2020 and we still going to struggle with traffic.

Province is in debt big time, LRT project should not be postponed because of finances, seems we have to do work ourselves, well why not work what we already got? GRT.

Getting rid of it would be foolish, especially without a new inter modial station. Now if that were in place, yes, get rid of it. There HAS to be a station downtown in my opinion.

[KLM]

Getting rid of it would be foolish, especially without a new inter modial station. Now if that were in place, yes, get rid of it. There HAS to be a station downtown in my opinion.

Ok, leave Charles terminal where it is ,but still GRT routes must be heavily revised.

My concern now is LRT funding: what happens if provincial and federal gov`t say: well sorry guys we ran into deficit ,project either postponed , delayed… etc.

We have to find some alternative.

[Spokes]

Ok, leave Charles terminal where it is ,but still GRT routes must be heavily revised.

My concern now is LRT funding: what happens if provincial and federal gov`t say: well sorry guys we ran into deficit ,project either postponed , delayed… etc.

We have to find some alternative.

Well if the funding isn't there, its not happening, the cities will never pay for it since theres still opposition. Having the feds and the province pay such a big chunk was how they could justify it. Paying for the whole thing wouldn't fly. So what should they do? Keep the proposal on the back burner and keep trying for funding and then realign the system in a way that would work even if LRT happened. How I would do that would be to add 5 more express lines similar to the iXpress. 2 more running north/south and 3 running east west. East/West maybe Ottawa, Victoria and Erb/Bridgeport and North/South Fischer Hallman and maybe one other. These lines would feed directly into LRT once it was there and in the mean time provide much needed service. Adding these would allow you to get rid of other routes.

[smably]

Ok, leave Charles terminal where it is ,but still GRT routes must be heavily revised.

My concern now is LRT funding: what happens if provincial and federal gov`t say: well sorry guys we ran into deficit ,project either postponed , delayed… etc.

We have to find some alternative.
There is plenty we can do without funding for light rail.

Immediately start bumping up iXpress frequency. Realign and straighten local routes so they feed into the central corridor. Build the multi-modal terminal at King and Victoria. Add proper signal priority and queue-jump lanes for express routes. These are all things we can start working on right now -- and they are in the plan, but they can't come soon enough.

[KLM]

There is plenty we can do without funding for light rail.

Immediately start bumping up iXpress frequency. Realign and straighten local routes so they feed into the central corridor. Build the multi-modal terminal at King and Victoria. Add proper signal priority and queue-jump lanes for express routes. These are all things we can start working on right now -- and they are in the plan, but they can't come soon enough.

now I have a feeling that LRT is nice to have thing ( on our wishlist) but if LRT doesnt come true ,we can `kinda` live without it?

realign routes is something could be done right away or at least to be plan for next 2 years or so. Only reason why I am not taking bus is not because of actual `bus` its because of their moronic setup of bus routes.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

There is plenty we can do without funding for light rail.

Immediately start bumping up iXpress frequency. Realign and straighten local routes so they feed into the central corridor. Build the multi-modal terminal at King and Victoria. Add proper signal priority and queue-jump lanes for express routes. These are all things we can start working on right now -- and they are in the plan, but they can't come soon enough.

Indeed. We could've been doing this long ago! Besides the brainwork going into making the changes, this is not a very costly endeavor. By the time LRT actually happens, everything else will already be in place.

[Spokes]

There is plenty we can do without funding for light rail.

Immediately start bumping up iXpress frequency. Realign and straighten local routes so they feed into the central corridor. Build the multi-modal terminal at King and Victoria. Add proper signal priority and queue-jump lanes for express routes. These are all things we can start working on right now -- and they are in the plan, but they can't come soon enough.

Are these things that the regional transportation people are talking about at least or are they not even really on their radar?

[mpd618]

Are these things that the regional transportation people are talking about at least or are they not even really on their radar?

Most of this is in the Regional Transportation Master Plan, and if it gets enough funding, will be a reality in the next few years. So do come out to support it at the public meeting next Wednesday night.

[KLM]

how many meetings they had so far ?

if things can be done and without big bucks why wait ? I just don`t get them.

In my opinion if finance is a problem ,they should build LRT for Waterloo only ( and I believe its first phase anyway).

Universities,tech sector ( RIM,Open Text etc) plus all those developments in Waterloo making city more populated and dense.

[mpd618]

Sometime in the next few weeks the province should be finishing its Transit Project Assessment for the light rail, and then we should see what the negotiations with the two levels of government have produced. The previously posted story looks like Jeff Outhit trying to stir up some nonsense.

As for making changes, the new Regional Transportation Master Plan (assuming it gets funded), the phased-in redesign of the transit network, and the Regional Official Plan are all going to make for a much improved transit system, with or without light rail infrastructure for the central corridor. It's not going to happen as swiftly as I'd like, but there's a lot of political process to be followed.

[plam]

I saw this discussion of Ottawa's BRT system on the Internet. Someone should send it to Jeff Outhit.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/17/ottawa-closer-than-ever-to-replacing-bus-rapid-transit-with-light-rail/

Short version: Ottawa needs to go to LRT now due to capacity issues (as we've said elsewhere on this thread). Ottawa now has to spend tons of money on conversion and it's going to be really inconvenient. The BRT had some convenience advantages over LRT in the past, in that it could visit more neighbourhoods, but it was slower.

[Spokes]

I saw this discussion of Ottawa's BRT system on the Internet. Someone should send it to Jeff Outhit.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/05/17/ottawa-closer-than-ever-to-replacing-bus-rapid-transit-with-light-rail/

Short version: Ottawa needs to go to LRT now due to capacity issues (as we've said elsewhere on this thread). Ottawa now has to spend tons of money on conversion and it's going to be really inconvenient. The BRT had some convenience advantages over LRT in the past, in that it could visit more neighbourhoods, but it was slower.

Ya the system there is quite nice, but like you mentioned, very over crowded. A dedicated transitway is nice except for when you get into the core and youre on city streets again. They passed a North South LRT line back in 2007 that would have run I think 800 million, the new mayor cancelled it which resulted in a lawsuit. Now they're waiting on funding for a new (and better in my opinion) East West LRT line that will include a tunnel through downtown. At the nice price tag of 2.1 billion. It'll take a while but will be quite nice when done.

[smably]

A dedicated transitway is nice except for when you get into the core and youre on city streets again.
Exactly. In order to have enough capacity at stations, you pretty much need a segregated bus highway, with all the associated pollution and noise. Anybody want a freeway for buses going through downtown?

[KLM]

nice comment in The Record today.

Queen’s Park must end transit silence
TheRecord.com - Editorials - Queen’s Park must end transit silence


It’s time for the Ontario government to say exactly what it’s prepared to spend on a new rapid transit system in Waterloo Region.

Three years ago, this same Liberal government proudly pledged to cover 2/3 of the cost of a rapid transit initiative in this community — knowing full well this would drain hundreds of millions of dollars from its treasury.

Then, nearly one year ago, the regional government voted to create a light rail line linking Kitchener and Waterloo as well as a rapid bus connection to and through Cambridge. The business plan for this ambitious, $800-million venture was duly completed and sent to the province over half a year ago in full expectation that the government would make good on its promise.

But as the months have passed, and the provincial government’s dismal fiscal situation has become glaringly obvious, concerns about the fate of light rail in this community are growing. Local officials expected to have the province’s funding commitment last December. Instead, the only thing to come from Queen’s Park on the matter has been a deafening silence. This is unacceptable.

It’s no exaggeration to say that this light-rail, rapid-bus system would be one of the biggest, most expensive and important projects in the region’s history. Advocates insist it would reshape the entire community, encouraging more people to live in urban cores as it offered a convenient and affordable alternative to cars. But is all of this just a pipe dream?

Last week, Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig urged the region to drop the more expensive light rail transit plans in favour of bringing cheaper rapid buses to all three of the region’s cities. Regional Chair Ken Seiling shot back that Craig’s proposal was “foolish” as well as premature.

The fact is, such debates are utterly pointless until this region knows how much money Queen’s Park is ready to give.

At the very least, the province owes this region a response. Yes, the Ontario government is in tough fiscal shape. It already plans to spend more than it takes in every year until 2018. It is trying to constrain some of its own costs, in part by reining in public sector wages. But it also wants to go ahead with big ticket projects such as all-day kindergarten and promoting green energy.

Where public transit fits in the government’s priorities is unclear. The province did come through with $600 million for light rail in Ottawa. But it has delayed $4 billion in funding for light rail lines in Toronto, Canada’s biggest city.

So where does Waterloo Region stand? It still expects the province to pay 2/3 of the cost of its approved project — which works out to about $512 million.

Will the province fund the region’s light rail and rapid bus system at the level it promised? Or is it prepared to make a much smaller contribution? Can it start paying up in the next two or three years? Or will any provincial contribution come much later in this decade?

It is essential that Premier Dalton McGuinty bring clarity to the funding issue. The federal government, too, has said it will fund the region’s new transit system, though at a lower level than what the province will give. But because municipalities are a provincial responsibility, the federal government will follow the Ontario government’s lead.

So, Premier McGuinty, lead. If this project is still viable, let us know. If it is not, tell Waterloo Region and let this community make its rapid transit plans accordingly.

[Spokes]

Exactly. In order to have enough capacity at stations, you pretty much need a segregated bus highway, with all the associated pollution and noise. Anybody want a freeway for buses going through downtown?

They have two one way streets there that have two lanes for buses only between certain times i believe.

[mpd618]

They have two one way streets there that have two lanes for buses only between certain times i believe.

And at-grade intersections with cross streets.

[metropolis]

Don't know if this was ever posted but the Robertson Simmons Architects site has a multi-modal transit facility rendering for King and Victoria Streets at the below address. Anyone know iwho commissioned this?

http://www.rsarchitects.ca/projects/projects.asp?L1=urbandesign&L2=mmud&L3=

[Waterlooer]

Don't know if this was ever posted but the Robertson Simmons Architects site has a multi-modal transit facility rendering for King and Victoria Streets at the below address. Anyone know iwho commissioned this?

http://www.rsarchitects.ca/projects/projects.asp?L1=urbandesign&L2=mmud&L3=

Interestin

[Urbanomicon]

Don't know if this was ever posted but the Robertson Simmons Architects site has a multi-modal transit facility rendering for King and Victoria Streets at the below address. Anyone know iwho commissioned this?

http://www.rsarchitects.ca/projects/projects.asp?L1=urbandesign&L2=mmud&L3=

Nice renders.

Is that huge surface lot at the bottom of the picture for the transit hub or Kaufman Lofts?

[taylortbb]

Is that huge surface lot at the bottom of the picture for the transit hub or Kaufman Lofts?

That's the current Kaufman lot. Hopefully once that transit hub is built the land will be valueable enough the condo company sells it off with the Kaufman parking being moved underground.

[Spokes]

Don't know if this was ever posted but the Robertson Simmons Architects site has a multi-modal transit facility rendering for King and Victoria Streets at the below address. Anyone know iwho commissioned this?

http://www.rsarchitects.ca/projects/projects.asp?L1=urbandesign&L2=mmud&L3=

I wondered the same thing, if someone commissioned it, or they just put the proposal together on their own

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

I wondered the same thing, if someone commissioned it, or they just put the proposal together on their own

It could have been the Region as a part of their plan to purchase property at planned LRT stops to facilitate Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Maybe if we do some digging, we can find a Regional staff report commissioning it.

[smably]

I remember that there was a plan several years ago for a multi-modal terminal (with a convention centre, I think?) near King and Victoria, but I think it was before plans for the pharmacy school. Presumably this is a more recent thing. I haven't seen anything about this in any recent staff reports.

[KevinL]

I remember that there was a plan several years ago for a multi-modal terminal (with a convention centre, I think?) near King and Victoria, but I think it was before plans for the pharmacy school. Presumably this is a more recent thing. I haven't seen anything about this in any recent staff reports.

Indeed, and those plans were on the current site of the pharmacy school, so that shows how long ago that was dropped.

The plans here mesh with what's been talked about currently - the GO station would move from the its temporary spot at the current VIA station at Weber, to come up to its permanent place next to King (and close the Waterloo Street level crossing, included on this render).

It looks very nice, I'd love to see this work out.

[Spokes]

Indeed, and those plans were on the current site of the pharmacy school, so that shows how long ago that was dropped.

The plans here mesh with what's been talked about currently - the GO station would move from the its temporary spot at the current VIA station at Weber, to come up to its permanent place next to King (and close the Waterloo Street level crossing, included on this render).

It looks very nice, I'd love to see this work out.

You and me both!! Welcome to Wonderful Waterloo!

[Spokes]

Some mention of our project in an Ottawa Citizen article about their LRT project that's about to get funding :


Part of the problem is dwindling federal funds, exacerbated by stiff competition for that money from other regions. Ottawa is competing for funds with the Kitchener-Waterloo region, which is planning a light rail project of its own, which would eventually include Cambridge. At one time, Kitchener-Waterloo was believed to have the edge over Ottawa in the race for funds.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Light+rail+cash+only+days+away/3109310/story.html#ixzz0q7yCQifB

So if we're in direct competition with Ottawa for funding right now, we're probably not getting it any time soon.

[taylortbb]

What I've heard suggests that the federal government is ready to go on their funding. They already had most of it set aside and ready to go in the Building Canada fund, and announced it the day after approval by Regional council. The also said that more would be coming following discussions with Queen's Park. Dalton is our holdup.

[IEFBR14]

So if we're in direct competition with Ottawa for funding right now, we're probably not getting it any time soon.
OTOH both federal ridings in K-W were won by the Tories by the slimmest of margins in the last election upsetting incumbent Liberals, so the Conservative government has a strong incentive to do everything they can to ensure they keep those seats in the next election.

[taylortbb]

OTOH both federal ridings in K-W were won by the Tories by the slimmest of margins in the last election upsetting incumbent Liberals, so the Conservative government has a strong incentive to do everything they can to ensure they keep those seats in the next election.

This is very true. Per capita we got way more than our share of stimulus. Plus there's FedDev, this new billion dollar economic development agency. Not being a Harper supporter I of course don't like the inequal distribution, but it's probably good for the region.

[KLM]

I agree cons got ridings very close, but to compete with Ottawa for LRT its hard.Not to mention Toronto. Would you invest money in Ottawa-national capital vs Waterloo Region?

Our best bet ,do it on your own- wisely,and since I commute everyday on 401 ,make it first from Kitchener to Cambridge in my opinion.Just to take cars off the highway if possible.

[Spokes]

What I've heard suggests that the federal government is ready to go on their funding. They already had most of it set aside and ready to go in the Building Canada fund, and announced it the day after approval by Regional council. The also said that more would be coming following discussions with Queen's Park. Dalton is our holdup.

I hope so! Ya the province is definitely going to be an issue. Dalton and giving out money, not two things that go hand and hand right now hah.


OTOH both federal ridings in K-W were won by the Tories by the slimmest of margins in the last election upsetting incumbent Liberals, so the Conservative government has a strong incentive to do everything they can to ensure they keep those seats in the next election.

Good point, I hadnt thought of that. All I meant was that if it were one or the other, Ottawa's getting it, not us. Like KLM mentioned, the fact that they're the capital and have all the Federal offices is a major factor, plus they've got the NCC pushing for it to improve the image of the city.

[Spokes]

I agree cons got ridings very close, but to compete with Ottawa for LRT its hard.Not to mention Toronto. Would you invest money in Ottawa-national capital vs Waterloo Region?

Our best bet ,do it on your own- wisely,and since I commute everyday on 401 ,make it first from Kitchener to Cambridge in my opinion.Just to take cars off the highway if possible.

I can't see a senario where people would be ok with that to be honest. Cambridge already doesnt love the situation with having to pay but not get LRT right away. Not to mention the other opponents. For us to foot the whole bill, I think it'd result in the downfall of LRT.

[KLM]

I can't see a senario where people would be ok with that to be honest. Cambridge already doesnt love the situation with having to pay but not get LRT right away. Not to mention the other opponents. For us to foot the whole bill, I think it'd result in the downfall of LRT.

right now we are not getting it ,as it is.

Im not taking sides here but for example how would Waterloo feel if they dont get LRT and Cambridge does?

[Spokes]

right now we are not getting it ,as it is.

Im not taking sides here but for example how would Waterloo feel if they dont get LRT and Cambridge does?

I completely agree with you about that. All Im saying is that Cambridge ALREADY isn't happy about it (justified), now if they had to pay for for the whole thing without upper level funding, they'd be even more upset.

I just cant see any senario where a) the region can afford the whole thing and b) even if they could afford it, the project being supported, especially in an election year

[jay]

LRT will never go to Cambridge over Waterloo... It's ridiculous to even think that scenario could happen. The universities and a core is the reason Waterloo/Kitchener is in the first phase.

And Spokes is right the region would never foot the bill for the provinces share of the LRT, Cambridge, Kitchener and people in Waterloo would flip, therefore, killing the project.

[KLM]

LRT will never go to Cambridge over Waterloo... It's ridiculous to even think that scenario could happen. The universities and a core is the reason Waterloo/Kitchener is in the first phase.

And Spokes is right the region would never foot the bill for the provinces share of the LRT, Cambridge, Kitchener and people in Waterloo would flip, therefore, killing the project.

if there is no funding as Spokes said and if we have to compete with Ottawa and Toronto ,we can just dream about LRT.

Plus political games/opposition makes it even worse.

My stand on this make LRT for all 3 cities or dont even think about it.
I think thats fair enough.

[Urbanomicon]

My stand on this make LRT for all 3 cities or dont even think about it.
I think thats fair enough.

LRT is eventually planned to be extended to Cambridge, but the initial phase is Kitchener to Waterloo. If we asked for the entire lump sum of money for both phases up front, we would never get it. It's a lot easier to get numerous small chunks of money over time than a single large chunk.

[KLM]

I agree ,just there will be project delays and it will cost more down the road.

[jay]

Everyone knows that. That's why Doug Craig is pissed about it, he knows it won't be anytime soon before Cambridge gets LRT. In my opinion I don't think Cambridge will get LRT until roughly 10-20 years from now. Like it or not the region views Cambridge as it's step son. Doug Craig knows this... But that's a whole other topic not related to this....

LRT might take a year or so to get the funding from the province, but I don't think this is dead by any means. It's a political thing that will take time to play out. It's a billion dollar project after all in a region of 500,000.

[IEFBR14]

Everyone knows that...
Waterloo Region can't justify an almost $1billion LRT based on current or near-future ridership. But K and W can make a better case for it than C. So ISTM that if we spend such a large amount on an LRT we should use it on the most heavily used part. First demonstrate the value of an LRT to the region using the K-W line. Then use that success story to justify further funding to extend it to C.

[KLM]

key word: justification is what worries me, population wise.

[Urbanomicon]

key word: justification is what worries me, population wise.


At a cost of $1 billion dollars to service the populations of Kitchener and Waterloo, that works out to almost $3,000 per person. That is a huge investment per capita and may prove quite difficult to justify.

[IEFBR14]

$1 billion ... is a huge investment per capita and may prove quite difficult to justify.
Indeed on both counts. I imagine the same has been said of just about every major publicly-funded transit project in history. Then a decade or so after completion, when people look back, they see a brilliant move by a prescient society. Where would we be today without a subway in Toronto and Montreal -- or a TGV system in France and the rest of the continent?

[KevinL]

I agree cons got ridings very close, but to compete with Ottawa for LRT its hard.Not to mention Toronto. Would you invest money in Ottawa-national capital vs Waterloo Region?

Do not underestimate the federal government's apathy towards its hometown. I've visited many times and heard from locals about how there's a very bad disconnect on various points.

[panamaniac]

Do not underestimate the federal government's apathy towards its hometown. I've visited many times and heard from locals about how there's a very bad disconnect on various points.

You mean Calgary? ;)

[KayDubya]

LRT will never go to Cambridge over Waterloo... It's ridiculous to even think that scenario could happen. The universities and a core is the reason Waterloo/Kitchener is in the first phase.

And Spokes is right the region would never foot the bill for the provinces share of the LRT, Cambridge, Kitchener and people in Waterloo would flip, therefore, killing the project.

I agree. I understand why peole in Cambridge feel left out because the first phase of LRT wont run to Cambridge but doesn't Cambridge have much lower use of public transportation than the other two cities?
I may be wrong about that but if I'm correct it would be a poor decision to start phase one in an area were use will be much lower. I'm sure if they build this thing they don't want to start it with the posiblilty of virtualy empty trains running around the region at a cost of 3/4 billion dollars.
I'm pretty sure most of the studies they've done have shown a much higher user rate between Kitchener and Waterloo at start up.

[DHLawrence]

Like it or not the region views Cambridge as it's step son.

That close? More like a distant cousin that they forget is even there.

People in Cambridge would not be as irritated with the light rail project if we were getting something besides street lights out of it. Transit use in Cambridge is low because of the layout of the city. It isn't a point-to-point system like in KW; it's a long slog from one end of the city to the other just to change buses to get where you want to go. Putting the bus terminal in Galt was a mistake; they should have put it on Hespeler Road near Pinebush or Cambridge Centre, somewhere equally remote from the three cores that doesn't require three buses to bypass a trip to Galt. The road layout in Cambridge wasn't designed for transit use because the arterial roads were mapped out when everything between the cores was farmland. Whatever wasn't taken care of within town was accessible by rail.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

That close? More like a distant cousin that they forget is even there.

People in Cambridge would not be as irritated with the light rail project if we were getting something besides street lights out of it. Transit use in Cambridge is low because of the layout of the city. It isn't a point-to-point system like in KW; it's a long slog from one end of the city to the other just to change buses to get where you want to go. Putting the bus terminal in Galt was a mistake; they should have put it on Hespeler Road near Pinebush or Cambridge Centre, somewhere equally remote from the three cores that doesn't require three buses to bypass a trip to Galt. The road layout in Cambridge wasn't designed for transit use because the arterial roads were mapped out when everything between the cores was farmland. Whatever wasn't taken care of within town was accessible by rail.

Well, when talking about road layouts that make no sense, we are comparing ourselves to Kitchener and Waterloo...come on now. ;)

Btw, there are 3 bus terminals in Cambridge and they are connected to each other by route 51 and the iXpress. Both of which have a reasonably high level of service.

I think the issue is more that we don't really have anywhere where there is a dense concentration of people and jobs in the same way that KW has downtown-uptown and the university node. There's downtown Galt...but that isn't much of a destination. And everything else is just wayyyy too spread out. Service to Conestoga College is a joke for now, but I hope it does improve as the Cambridge side starts to build up.

[DHLawrence]

Exactly. Most of Cambridge's land went from farmland to suburb and there has been no attempt at densification outside the same Edwardian-era cores we've always had. We need something to go onto the Hespeler Road strip so that there's an actual destination reachable by transit in town.

And what's the third terminal? If you mean SmartCentres, all you can get there is iXpress and 51--helpful if you're from Hespeler or Galt, but not exactly accessible to the east end or Preston. You can get the GO bus, of course, but the schedules aren't synchronized. I've heard passengers on the GO bus complain about waiting nearly half an hour for a local bus--except for the last bus of the day, which arrives after GRT has shut down for the night. It's a good plan but needs work.

[KLM]

seems I opened whole can of worms here.

my question would be if LRT revision is possible what could be done: better ,more cost effective etc.

[panamaniac]

Meanwhile, the Ottawa CItizen reports that Baird will be announcing $600 million (too little, in my view) for Ottawa's LRT.

[Spokes]

seems I opened whole can of worms here.

my question would be if LRT revision is possible what could be done: better ,more cost effective etc.

Some would say LRT isn't the way to go then if you're looking for a cost effective way and therefore should go with BRT, I think it's a mistake, a big one. A few reasons, from a transit perspective, buses in Waterloo Region have a stigma attached to them, LRT at least would provide something different and new and there would be a lot of hype around it, buses not so much. From a development perspective, LRT lines and stops are fairly permanent, people can (and will) build around them, bus routes can change easilly.

So is there things we can do to make it more cost effective? Probably. Significantly cheaper? Probably not as long as you're staying with LRT.

As for "better" Im not entirely sure what you had in mind. Cambridge residents would say it would be better if they got the service,or didn't have to pay for it. The cost is the main thing holding the entire project back right now.

[Spokes]

Meanwhile, the Ottawa CItizen reports that Baird will be announcing $600 million (too little, in my view) for Ottawa's LRT.

Ya too little. The problem is that a few years ago, it was enough. Intially the project was supposed to be 1.8 billion, so split between the 3 levels of gvnt thats 600 million each, which has been committed. Well now the price has risen to 2.1 billion and they're going to be 300 million short, so who picks that up?

[IEFBR14]

It's now official. Federal gov't approves $600M for Ottawa light-rail project (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Federal+approves+600M+Ottawa+light+rail+project/3124570/story.html#ixzz0qHZ0YbVg) and Feds commit $600M to build Ottawa's light-rail plan (http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100608/OTT_LIGHTRAIL_100608/20100608). No word yet on what this means for our region's plans.

BTW my earlier comment, that "both federal ridings in K-W were won by the Tories by the slimmest of margins ..." cuts both ways. If federal funding for Waterloo's LRT gets delayed or killed, we should make it an election issue. Indeed now might be a good time to e-mail Messrs. Braid and Woodworth to remind them of (1) Ottawa's commitment to us and (2) how slim are the margins by which they hold their ridings.

[garthdanlor]

At a cost of $1 billion dollars to service the populations of Kitchener and Waterloo, that works out to almost $3,000 per person. That is a huge investment per capita and may prove quite difficult to justify.

I was looking at the budget for the infrastructure reconstruction (the full monty...pipes, roads, sewers, sidewalks) currently happening on my street and it looks like it works out to about $25000 per house on the street so lets say about $6000 per resident. That's twice the above amount per person yet these sort of costs certainly don't see the amount of scrutiny that the LRT project is receiving because these services are considered essential to the city's future (and because the city only reconstructs a tiny section of the city each budget year). I don't think it will be impossible to convince the general public that rapid transit is an essential service in a rapidly growing urban centre, but it I think it will actually take the building of the LRT and a number of years of operation before people will begin to realize why it is essential. Until then we just have to hope that the political will remains strong, the transit activists keep lobbying, and pray the promised dollars don't dry up...

As for the Cambridge vs. KW thing, I can understand why Cambridge is miffed that they won't be getting LRT right away but why not put a positive spin on this? Cambridge will be getting improved bus service to KW right away and then LRT within the next decade or so. Those are both good things. Would Cambridge have a chance of getting LRT anytime in the next few decades if it wasn't for a project like this one?

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

if there is no funding as Spokes said and if we have to compete with Ottawa and Toronto ,we can just dream about LRT.


Don't forget about competing with Hamilton too, and their aggressive rapid transit proposal (http://www.hamilton.ca/ProjectsInitiatives/RapidTransit/).

[mpd618]

Can we focus on competing with highway expansion instead of with other cities' worthwhile transit programs? Like the billions of dollars the province is planning on spending on highway 401 widening, or a new highway 424, or a new highway 7.... No more highway expansion until we get serious transportation choice.

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

Can we focus on competing with highway expansion instead of with other cities' worthwhile transit programs? Like the billions of dollars the province is planning on spending on highway 401 widening, or a new highway 424, or a new highway 7.... No more highway expansion until we get serious transportation choice.

Highway expansion and construction is still a very just investment transportation wise. I absolutely have no problem with the new Highway 7 or various other planned highway projects. We can't just forget about them and ditch them altogether.

Just ask the trucking industry. Practically everything you use, no matter how green or locally focused you are trying to be arrives to you via truck that travelled on Ontario's 400 series highways. We need a balanced approach to transit. Always keep that in mind.

Plans for the new Highway 7 are not progressing any faster than the Region's LRT proposal for funding and commitment by the province.

[mpd618]

Highway expansion and construction is still a very just investment transportation wise. I absolutely have no problem with the new Highway 7 or various other planned highway projects. We can't just forget about them and ditch them altogether.

Just ask the trucking industry. Practically everything you use, no matter how green or locally focused you are trying to be arrives to you via truck that travelled on Ontario's 400 series highways. We need a balanced approach to transit. Always keep that in mind.

The primary justification for expansion is to satisfy a largely peak-hour commuter demand by single-occupancy drivers who have no reasonable transit alternatives and who are certainly given no incentive to better utilize the taxpayer-funded highway resource. (And to what extent are those trucking companies paying their share of any new highways? I don't think it appropriate to be subsidizing transportation by truck.)

A balanced approach requires providing choice, not using the limited funding to further fund highways at the expense of transit. Where are the user fees? Where is the commuter rail? Further highway expansion at this point is not only bad for the environment, it's also a tremendous waste of taxpayer money.

[Urbanomicon]

I don't think it appropriate to be subsidizing transportation by truck.

Keep in mind, the higher we make the costs for freight companies to transport goods, the higher prices they will charge. This will trickle down to the consumer and cause the prices to increase on all consumer goods. My economic knowledge is somewhat limited, but I believe this would increase inflation as well.

[taylortbb]

Keep in mind, the higher we make the costs for freight companies to transport goods, the higher prices they will charge. This will trickle down to the consumer and cause the prices to increase on all consumer goods. My economic knowledge is somewhat limited, but I believe this would increase inflation as well.

By that logic though we should be subsiding rail transport too because otherwise goods which are shipped by train (still a very significant number) would be too expensive.

It may make sense to do that, I don't think CN should ever have been privatized. Just pointing out that it's cultural to favour roads in a way they probably shouldn't be.

The native form of the car is suburbia. Trying to make things urban and simultaneously car-centric just doesn't work. Building more freeways is the definition of car-centric development. I'm not suggesting we tear down our existing freeways right now, but widening them when we could be investing in transit doesn't make sense. Metro Toronto claimed that the Spadina Expressway was "required". They said quite simply, our traffic forcasts show that car traffic into downtown will increase, we must meet this need. But that completely ignores the relation between system design and demand. Metro Toronto's vision for what was "required" to meet "inevitable demand" would have resulted in a downtown Toronto which wasn't even close to being as vibrant or desirable as the one that exists today. It might even have been the death of downtown Toronto, like is seen in so many American cities which had massive urban freeways constructed.

[Urbanomicon]

By that logic though we should be subsiding rail transport too because otherwise goods which are shipped by train (still a very significant number) would be too expensive.


Keep in mind, shipping by train is already cheaper than by truck when dealing with extremely large quantities and/or a heavy products that need to go to a single destination (also with a railway spur). However, shipping by train is almost exclusively used by heavy industry since they are generally the only ones with railway spurs.

Also, and I don't have any numbers to support this, but I think shipping by truck far exceeds the volume of products shipped by train.

[mpd618]

Keep in mind, the higher we make the costs for freight companies to transport goods, the higher prices they will charge. This will trickle down to the consumer and cause the prices to increase on all consumer goods.

Absolutely, that's exactly what should happen! If I want to buy something that required shipping, I should be paying the costs of that shipping without expecting you to chip in. That way there would be an incentive to be using the most economically efficient and environmentally sound transportation, and to otherwise economize on transportation. As it is. taxpayers are subsidizing that shipping, and conversely not subsidizing shipping by rail or ship. When something is free or cheap, you're not going to be nearly as economical in using it. In this case, that something is highways that are very expensive to build and to maintain.

[mpd618]

Keep in mind, shipping by train is already cheaper than by truck when dealing with extremely large quantities and/or a heavy products that need to go to a single destination (also with a railway spur). However, shipping by train is almost exclusively used by heavy industry since they are generally the only ones with railway spurs.

Also, and I don't have any numbers to support this, but I think shipping by truck far exceeds the volume of products shipped by train.

Shipping by train would make more financial sense for smaller quantities if if were subsidized to the same degree as shipping by truck. Your point about shipping volumes and railway spurs is a statement of the problem. There's nothing inherent about our current need or demand for goods that requires them to be transported by truck to the degree that they are today.

[IEFBR14]

There's nothing inherent about our current need or demand for goods that requires them to be transported by truck to the degree that they are today.While I agree, try to tell that to the 1,000s of independent truckers, each of whom wields a vote, and to the politicians who pander to them.

[Urbanomicon]

While I agree, try to tell that to the 1,000s of independent truckers, each of whom wields a vote, and to the politicians who pander to them.

This isn't just a Canada issue either. A lot of the trucks on the road are going to/from the United States. The US would have to get on board as well if more freight is to be shipped via train.

[jay]

You can't ship a lot of stuff by train because what if the factory isn't close to the tracks. They would have to ship it to a station then drive it to the final location. Which would cost more and is way more inconvenient.
.
I worked in manufacturing for years and my family owned a business in the industry and 90% of the goods was shipped by truck because it made sense for business, and half of what we shipped was priority shipping. Train works for some industry but even those industry's use trucks for 60% of there shipping (eg. Toyota). Not to mention 80% of Canadian company's ship to the states.

[mpd618]

It took many decades for industry to shift from being along rail lines to being built near highways, and it would take time for industry to adapt to economic incentives to be lighter on our environment and on our pocketbooks. But change they would.

[Spokes]

Boomers will shun rapid transit, scholar predicts

By Jeff Outhit, Record staff

WATERLOO REGION — Demographics guru David Foot is pouring cold water on ambitious plans for rapid transit, while dismissing a desired urban housing goal.

Foot is the bestselling author of Boom, Bust & Echo. The outspoken University of Toronto scholar, who contends demographics explains two-thirds of everything, was invited Tuesday to speak at a housing forum sponsored by Waterloo regional government.

Foot predicts a proposed system of electric trains costing up to $800 million will not draw the passengers that politicians desire as our population ages.

Drivers might be lured onto small, luxurious buses featuring leather seats, door-to-door service and $10 fares. “That sort of public transit could work well for an aging population,” he said in an interview.

But he does not see local residents abandoning their cars to ride mass-transit trains.

“Everyday transit, they’re going to drive their cars,” he said. “They’ll drive their cars a little less now, because they’re not shipping their kids to the hockey arenas and the football. But they’re going to drive their cars until they can no longer drive them.”

He also predicts few suburban residents will relocate to downtown condominiums as they get older. Most will either stay put as they age, relocate to quieter homes outside cities, or reside only part-time in urban condos, spending more of their time in vacation or retirement spots.

Local planners invited Foot to speak knowing he might dispute local initiatives. “David is very thought-provoking,” said Kevin Eby, regional director of community planning. “These are issues that need to be discussed.”

Eby is confident that changing behaviours and rising transportation costs will also shape future housing and transit choices. “Not everything can be explained through demographics,” he said.

Foot entertained planners and housing professionals with a lively presentation, showing how population trends shape consumer choices and government policy.

The title of his work refers to Canada’s baby boom era — 1947 to 1966 by his definition. It was followed by a population bust from 1967 to 1979, and then by a smaller surge called an echo, when boomers had their children.

Foot predicts local universities will soon struggle with declining enrolment, after the echo generation currently enrolling passes through. This is already happening in the Maritimes, where the population is slightly older.

jouthit@therecord.com

[Spokes]

I hope he's wrong, but Im not sure that he totally is. I think while driving in your car is still faster people will still drive, theres no reason not to. When traffic/parking makes people get out of their cars they will take transit. Right now they have no reason to. Traffic isnt bad enough that allows transit to be faster, and parking isnt expensive.

[jay]

He isn't wrong, but I still hope they build the system. Boomers might not use it 24/7 but it will still get it's uses from them and other people. The condo argument is a valid point, but I think it's because downtown/uptown condos are not cheap. People don't have to live in them because homes are not as expensive, like in Toronto.

Also gas is a little cheaper right now. I'm a firm believer that we will see 1.40 gas within 2 years and trust me that changes peoples opinions. Unless you have the luxury of being rich you will be forced to reduce your commute/lifestyle. At some point the 1/2 hour drives to work by car will not make sense, and that is why we should build the system now. I hate to bring up the expressway again, but if that wasn't built KW would have the nightmares Cambridge has today.

[KevinL]

The LRT cars for Toronto's Transit City plan have been ordered from Bombardier, it was announced earlier today. It's understood that other LRT systems (Waterloo's, Hamilton's, Ottawa's) may choose to use the same or similar model to save based on economies of scale. Here's an image (http://www.metrolinx.com/Docs/News/Bombardier_LRV_Kennedy.pdf) (5MB!) of the nearly-final design.

[mpd618]

As if the system's success is contingent on every single boomer packing up, selling their car, and moving to the LRT line. Of course, some will, and already are moving into condos. But by no means does this LRT's success require much beyond what it will get with high frequency, good quality of service (along a corridor that already has 30K daily transit riders), and transit-oriented development that will be spurred with the new Regional Official Plan.

Oh, I forgot. The transit system is being redesigned to make it the core route for the Region's transit system.

And... door to door luxury bus service? For what purpose? (I'll admit, something like this does exist, but as a suburban commuter bus (http://www.bauerswi-drive.org/). I don't think this has any value in urban non-commuter transportation.)

[DHLawrence]

They may not move downtown or change to light rail, but they won't be the only game in town in twenty years' time. Not all of the 250,000 people expected to swell Waterloo Region's ranks will be baby boomers--some of them will be young urbanites who want to live downtown. The boomers will still be a major factor, but hardly the only one.

[taylortbb]

And... door to door luxury bus service? For what purpose? (I'll admit, something like this does exist, but as a suburban commuter bus (http://www.bauerswi-drive.org/). I don't think this has any value in urban non-commuter transportation.)

It sounded to me like he was describing a subsidized taxi, maybe a luxury jitney, not anything we'd call "public transit" in today's sense.

[garthdanlor]

It sounded to me like he was describing a subsidized taxi, maybe a luxury jitney, not anything we'd call "public transit" in today's sense.
Funny thing is that Kitchener Transit used to offer a dial-a-ride service for a few years to a couple of the new suburbs at the time (late 70's) Definitely not luxury though. They ran it with a couple of half-sized buses and it cost normal fare. I think the service ended once the suburbs were judged to have enough residents to support permanent routes.

[urbandreamer]

I doubt the LRT will ever happen in K-W--densities just aren't there, and won't be for decades. A waste of money.

[diego]

I doubt the LRT will ever happen in K-W--densities just aren't there, and won't be for decades. A waste of money.

Well it is pretty much approved and set to be ready by 2014, densities might not be there now but with all the developments coming up and expected growth trends there will sure be more than enough to support it.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

I doubt the LRT will ever happen in K-W--densities just aren't there, and won't be for decades. A waste of money.

Sheesh...negativity.

The densities weren't there for 1970s Edmonton either. But they certainly are now.

What alternative do you propose for the increasingly congested route 7/iXpress corridor anyways?

[urbandreamer]

None. It's not that congested. I think it works perfectly, actually. (And I took that route daily to work when I lived in Waterloo.) Oh perhaps they could try Vancouver-style trolley buses? LRT's are expensive, and other than a few pockets of density in downtown Kitchener, the WLU area, I don't think they make financial sense.

Look at Bauer Lofts, for example. I bet 95% of the residents own and use a car as their means of transportation! Same goes for those student housing complexes. 1.5 weeks ago I was in the Loo, and walked from downtown Kitchener to King and Weber--I saw plenty of buses that weren't exactly full of people, and many many more cars. I was actually surprised to see a student housing building around King and Columbia filled with cars--BMWs no less! I'm being realistic when I say UW/WLU's "culture" is more in tune with a suburban campus like York U than downtown Toronto or Montreal campuses.

If being realistic is negative, so be it.:)

[KLM]

None. It's not that congested. I think it works perfectly, actually. (And I took that route daily to work when I lived in Waterloo.) Oh perhaps they could try Vancouver-style trolley buses? LRT's are expensive, and other than a few pockets of density in downtown Kitchener, the WLU area, I don't think they make financial sense.

Look at Bauer Lofts, for example. I bet 95% of the residents own and use a car as their means of transportation! Same goes for those student housing complexes. 1.5 weeks ago I was in the Loo, and walked from downtown Kitchener to King and Weber--I saw plenty of buses that weren't exactly full of people, and many many more cars. I was actually surprised to see a student housing building around King and Columbia filled with cars--BMWs no less! I'm being realistic when I say UW/WLU's "culture" is more in tune with a suburban campus like York U than downtown Toronto or Montreal campuses.

If being realistic is negative, so be it.:)

I agree with your comment urbandreamer, which probably 99% people on this forum would disagree with you and me lol:)

[van Hemessen]

I also agree! I think LRT is a long, LONG way off. Not because of density but politics.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

Look at Bauer Lofts, for example. I bet 95% of the residents own and use a car as their means of transportation!

I'd be surprised if 95% of Bauer residents use a car as their primary means of transportation. That said, there's a lot of people trying to access the Bauer shops by car and it's a rather messy situation. It raises questions about whether or not those shops would be viable without free parking.

I agree with Van Hemessen about politics being a bigger factor than urban form. There are a lot of other cities shooting for LRT (Toronto, Mississauga-Brampton, Hamilton, Ottawa) in Ontario. We may have the growth potential to sell it as a good investment, but the present urban form is far more condusive to selling the LRT in all the other cities (except maybe Mississauga-Brampton) vying for it.

What I have a problem with is coming up for car-oriented solutions to our car-dependency. It's a vicious cycle that leads to more of the same. A metro area of 550,000 shouldn't need an expressway of 8+ lanes...anywhere. Highway 8 will just fill up in another 10-15 years anyways. It's called induced demand.

Another example is the Lang Tannery. The building is being converted into office/retail space and creates the intensity of land uses in the core that we've been looking for...but because of car dependency, we end up with a district of surface parking lots surrounding the building. Bold moves need to be taken towards pedestrian-friendly/transit accessible core areas, or else we'll have to settle for a downtown that resembles Houston Jr. because we value drive-up parking as the factor that makes or breaks all progress.

LRT would be a bold move for the region to take on. It's been proven that LRT attracts more choice riders than busses anyways, so expect the transit modal share to increase as soon as LRT is up and running.

[diego]

I'd be surprised if 95% of Bauer residents use a car as their primary means of transportation. That said, there's a lot of people trying to access the Bauer shops by car and it's a rather messy situation. It raises questions about whether or not those shops would be viable without free parking.

I agree with Van Hemessen about politics being a bigger factor than urban form. There are a lot of other cities shooting for LRT (Toronto, Mississauga-Brampton, Hamilton, Ottawa) in Ontario. We may have the growth potential to sell it as a good investment, but the present urban form is far more condusive to selling the LRT in all the other cities (except maybe Mississauga-Brampton) vying for it.

What I have a problem with is coming up for car-oriented solutions to our car-dependency. It's a vicious cycle that leads to more of the same. A metro area of 550,000 shouldn't need an expressway of 8+ lanes...anywhere. Highway 8 will just fill up in another 10-15 years anyways. It's called induced demand.

Another example is the Lang Tannery. The building is being converted into office/retail space and creates the intensity of land uses in the core that we've been looking for...but because of car dependency, we end up with a district of surface parking lots surrounding the building. Bold moves need to be taken towards pedestrian-friendly/transit accessible core areas, or else we'll have to settle for a downtown that resembles Houston Jr. because we value drive-up parking as the factor that makes or breaks all progress.

LRT would be a bold move for the region to take on. It's been proven that LRT attracts more choice riders than busses anyways, so expect the transit modal share to increase as soon as LRT is up and running.

Exactly.

[mpd618]

These are the same old arguments from last year. The LRT is being planned as infrastructure for 20 years from now -- at which point demand will have continued to increase. One important reason for the increase in demand is that official plans are now forcing 40% or more of growth to occur in the core areas -- which are along the central transit corridor. The bus network is being redesigned to use the iXpress/LRT as a spine route, which will increase its use. Currently bus frequency along King Street is every 3-5 minutes, with the two highest ridership routes in the Region, and ridership continues to grow faster than the population. The LRT is excellent transportation infrastructure that would also serve to help reurbanization through attracting development to the cores.

It is not appropriate to wait until there is no choice but to build it. The result would be much more expensive, take more time, and damage the economic growth of the Region. Building it sooner rather than later would allow for less investment in road expansion, as more people would be taking transit and living next to transit.

[UrbanWaterloo]

None. It's not that congested. I think it works perfectly, actually. (And I took that route daily to work when I lived in Waterloo.) Oh perhaps they could try Vancouver-style trolley buses? LRT's are expensive, and other than a few pockets of density in downtown Kitchener, the WLU area, I don't think they make financial sense. Look at Bauer Lofts, for example. I bet 95% of the residents own and use a car as their means of transportation! Same goes for those student housing complexes. 1.5 weeks ago I was in the Loo, and walked from downtown Kitchener to King and Weber--I saw plenty of buses that weren't exactly full of people, and many many more cars. I was actually surprised to see a student housing building around King and Columbia filled with cars--BMWs no less! I'm being realistic when I say UW/WLU's "culture" is more in tune with a suburban campus like York U than downtown Toronto or Montreal campuses. If being realistic is negative, so be it.:)

You're not being realistic at all, please show me the data which would back up your statements. To justify your response, what year did you live in Waterloo and take that route daily? It's a serious question, because transit ridership in Waterloo Region has soared over the last decade (chart below). Also you couldn't be more wrong about the student housing complexes which are dominated by pedestrians & transit users. The majority of Bauer Loft residents would use a car however it's nowhere near 95%, go check out the parking garage yourself and you'll see there's many empty spots. I've talked to people in the building who walk & cycle to work.

ridership


I agree with Van Hemessen about politics being a bigger factor than urban form. There are a lot of other cities shooting for LRT (Toronto, Mississauga-Brampton, Hamilton, Ottawa) in Ontario. We may have the growth potential to sell it as a good investment, but the present urban form is far more condusive to selling the LRT in all the other cities (except maybe Mississauga-Brampton) vying for it.

I agree that Toronto & Ottawa should be first to the plate. However I'd give us the edge over Hamilton. Hamilton has a great history no doubt but has basically been a do nothing city for the last few decades. Compare their transit ridership chart with Waterloo Region's above. Back in 1996 their system was more than twice the size of ours. Flash Forward to 2010 and HSR is now only 23% larger than GRT (~ 21 million vs. 17 million riders). I wouldn't be surprised at all to see us surpass them in ridership this decade.

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/Outside%20Waterloo%20Region/Oct29Item64TransitDay2010Operationa.jpg
Source: http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/27902AA0-4854-4F93-B633-72D83CA9F615/0/Oct29Item64TransitDay2010OperationalReviewPresenta tion27Oct09PrintVersion.pdf


LRT would be a bold move for the region to take on. It's been proven that LRT attracts more choice riders than busses anyways, so expect the transit modal share to increase as soon as LRT is up and running.

Absolutely agreed.


It is not appropriate to wait until there is no choice but to build it. The result would be much more expensive, take more time, and damage the economic growth of the Region. Building it sooner rather than later would allow for less investment in road expansion, as more people would be taking transit and living next to transit.

+1

[UrbanWaterloo]

If infrastructure investments are made in other cities but not in this region, where's the box to tick off an exemption of a portion of the provincial income tax, or perhaps the HST should be introduced at 12% in this region instead. It makes no sense to pay into the provincial coffers (and we certainly do with the 2nd highest employment rate in the province - check the Labour Force Thread) and not have our fair share reinvested back into this community.

We have a $25-billion local economy. That's $250-billion over a 10-year period. The LRT/aBRT proposal, if spread over a 10-year period, is only 0.3% of our local economy. Notable for sure, but hardly something which would lead to bankruptcy.

Furthermore, that's simply looking at the transit proposal purely from a cost basis. The revenue generation basis has already been mentioned, but what about the cost recovery basis? An example of what I'm talking about would be a construction worker buying food during lunch. Let's just say (s)he spends $10, generating $1.30 in sales taxes. The cashier at the food outlet is also employed now paying taxes. etc.. etc.. Suddenly a $790-million proposal doesn't necessarily cost $790-million.

[DHLawrence]

If infrastructure investments are made in other cities but not in this region, where's the box to tick off an exemption of a portion of the provincial income tax, or perhaps the HST should be introduced at 12% in this region instead.

I don't think we see one of those for another year.

[uptownfoodcritic]

Is not the majority of the growth in transit ridership over the last decade due to every student at WLU and U(W) automatically getting a Bus Pass each term?

I suspect if they made the GRT entirely taxpayer funded and the rides free then you would see massive usage increases as well.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

Is not the majority of the growth in transit ridership over the last decade due to every student at WLU and U(W) automatically getting a Bus Pass each term?

That is the big elephant in the room about the sharp increase in transit's modal share. However, with the associated increases in frequency, it has brought in more non-students who would otherwise not use GRT because of the low service levels.

[taylortbb]

Is not the majority of the growth in transit ridership over the last decade due to every student at WLU and U(W) automatically getting a Bus Pass each term?

UW didn't get the bus pass till 2007, and growth was on a definite upward trend before that. Laurier was 2005 I think, and there was growth before that too. Laurier is also quite a bit smaller than UW, and I think generally has students living in places where walking to campus is quick.

I'm not denying that the UPasses are a major contributing factor. But if it was just the UPass we'd see jumps for the years they were introduced, and maybe the year after as people learn about it/change where they live. The growth however is a reasonably straight line.

[uptownfoodcritic]

UW didn't get the bus pass till 2007, and growth was on a definite upward trend before that. Laurier was 2005 I think, and there was growth before that too. Laurier is also quite a bit smaller than UW, and I think generally has students living in places where walking to campus is quick.

I'm not denying that the UPasses are a major contributing factor. But if it was just the UPass we'd see jumps for the years they were introduced, and maybe the year after as people learn about it/change where they live. The growth however is a reasonably straight line.

Well, if you look at the chart, you do see jumps in the years the UPass was instituted. If you draw a straight line using the pre-2005 numbers you would be just a little over 13 million (about 25% less ridership).

I think that chart shows pretty clearly that the UPass is the major growth factor for the last 5 years.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have an LRT. I'm saying let us be honest with our numbers here.

[taylortbb]

Though that ignores the fact though that major service expansion didn't start happening till 2004. GRT kept things pretty much the same for the first few years, they were too busy re-organizing things. There are jumps from the UPass for sure, but I'd say without it we'd see about 10-15% less ridership, not 25% less.

In either case, we seem to be mostly in agreement, 15% vs 25% is a pretty fine point for something like this.

[UrbanWaterloo]

We'll never know for sure, but 2005 likely would have seen a larger than average increase regardless of the WLU U-Pass. That was the year the iXpress was introduced.

The U-Passes have been a major growth factor no doubt, but you can see even in the years leading up to their introduction transit ridership was growing faster than population growth.

Yes university students have been a huge driver to the growth of the system but
(1) that growth has still occurred so we can use the resulting higher level of ridership to justify service expansion (namely LRT). Even if students were the ones who drove weekend iXpress service, that new service can (and has been) used to attract other riders too.
(2) the universities are still growing strongly (just look at all the new buildings going up), which will continue to fuel transit growth.
(3) the U-Pass program can still be expanded, this year the UW Grad students are being brought online. Conestoga will hopefully join one day too.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

U-Passes aside, other factors will be driving per capita growth over the next 5 years. Just look how many new residential, commercial, and institutional projects have started in the past couple of months alone. Look at how many more proposals are coming down the pipeline on top of that. The central transit corridor is already intensifying at a healthy pace, even without higher-order transit servicing it.

[KLM]

yes university numbers are up, one of the reasons for increase is because of double cohort, enrollment increase etc.

High enrollement on universities wont go up forever ,so we should expect that number going down in future.

Also what might affect ridership is gas prices. Few times was over $1 a liter ( in some cases 1.50 at worst) in period August 2005 -September 2008.

So that being said i would not go off charts since unpredictable circumstances going on.

Just this morning while I was commuting together with my co-worker I have seen I-xpress just on Hespler Exit on hwy 401 towards Cambridge,it was half empty.:(

[UrbanWaterloo]

U-Passes aside, other factors will be driving per capita growth over the next 5 years. Just look how many new residential, commercial, and institutional projects have started in the past couple of months alone. Look at how many more proposals are coming down the pipeline on top of that. The central transit corridor is already intensifying at a healthy pace, even without higher-order transit servicing it.

Agreed. By the time the first train rolls down the tracks we should already have a system ridership in the low 20-millions range.


yes university numbers are up, one of the reasons for increase is because of double cohort, enrollment increase etc. High enrollement on universities wont go up forever ,so we should expect that number going down in future.

So I guess you must believe the Quantum-Nano, Math 3, Environment 3, Engineering V, Engineering VI, WLU Centre for Global Innovation and Exchange, Conestoga College Cambridge Expansion, Conestoga College F Wing, and all the other post-secondary projects which I'm sure will come up in the next few decades, are all a waste of money too then? :rolleyes:


So that being said i would not go off charts since unpredictable circumstances going on.

Sure nobody can absolutely predict the future, but if you can't base predictions off of reasonable data and regional policies, then what can you base them on?

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

I can sort of see what KLM is talking about with the universities. UW was a product of the baby boom. Universities went through major expansions in the 1960s and 70s to accomodate this population cohort. Today's post-secondary growth is servicing generation Y, the children of the baby boomers. Absent immigration, one would expect enrollment to decline as Gen Y moves into their late 20s.

Then again, look at how many UW students are international students. The university makes a lot of money off them and I don't see this ending anytime soon. The main catchment area for UW also gets a wildly disproportionate share of Canada's immigrants. I doubt we'll be seeing decline anytime soon, but the growth we're seeing on campus right now is quite unusual and it wouldn't surprise me to see a slow down in university construction.

[mpd618]

I think this bears repeating: from now on, 40% of development is to be infill in urban core areas and major nodes. Furthermore, the new Regional Official Plan prohibits some of the egregious anti-street kinds of development we've seen up to now, and the new Regional Transportation Master Plan will be adding in some excellent parking policies to that list.

Policy will be forcing development to occur in a way that is conducive to transit use. The RTMP provides the funding increase necessary for a ramping up in transit service. Light rail will be the development carrot to the Official Plan's stick.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Absent immigration

Yes, but if you remove this very important growth characteristic out of the discussion, then really every single prediction would have to be changed. For example: Absent immigration, the region's population won't hit 729,000 in 2031. The overall population of the region would also have an effect on transit ridership.

We don't know 100% what will happen in the next 5, 10, 20 years, but it's reasonable to assume that immigration will continue and that Canada's (and Waterloo Region's) population will increase.

[UrbanWaterloo]

I've seen this supposed argument come up a few times now in various threads, but saying "you can't predict the future" is not a reasonable argument to make. If it was absolutely nothing would ever get done. We certainly wouldn't have announced the expanded courthouse earlier today just incase of the possibility the region's population could start falling and we wouldn't need the extra space.

[mpd618]

We don't know 100% what will happen in the next 5, 10, 20 years, but it's reasonable to assume that immigration will continue and that Canada's (and Waterloo Region's) population will increase.

Moreover, the Region of Waterloo is provincially mandated to plan for a population of 729,000 in 2031.

[Greg Moore]

June 27, 2010
RECORD STAFF
KITCHENER — What is being billed as a major public transit announcement will be made Monday morning in Kitchener.

Provincial Minister of Transportation Kathleen Wynne will be joined by Kitchener Centre MPP John Milloy, Kitchener-Conestoga MPP Leeanna Pendergast and regional chair Ken Seiling for the 9 a.m. announcement at regional headquarters.

Details weren’t being released prior to the event. Check www.therecord.com Monday for more on the announcement.


http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/736562

[jay]

Public transit announcement coming

June 27, 2010
RECORD STAFF
KITCHENER — What is being billed as a major public transit announcement will be made Monday morning in Kitchener.

Provincial Minister of Transportation Kathleen Wynne will be joined by Kitchener Centre MPP John Milloy, Kitchener-Conestoga MPP Leeanna Pendergast and regional chair Ken Seiling for the 9 a.m. announcement at regional headquarters.

Details weren’t being released prior to the event. Check www.therecord.com Monday for more on the announcement.


LRT maybe?.... I'm hoping so.

[isUsername]

Public transit announcement coming

June 27, 2010
RECORD STAFF
KITCHENER — What is being billed as a major public transit announcement will be made Monday morning in Kitchener.

Provincial Minister of Transportation Kathleen Wynne will be joined by Kitchener Centre MPP John Milloy, Kitchener-Conestoga MPP Leeanna Pendergast and regional chair Ken Seiling for the 9 a.m. announcement at regional headquarters.

Details weren’t being released prior to the event. Check www.therecord.com Monday for more on the announcement.


LRT maybe?.... I'm hoping so.

I hope so too. The media advisory didn't say anything specific, but what else could it be (aside from GO Trains):


Kathleen Wynne, Minister of Transportation will be joined by Kitchener-Centre MPP John Milloy, Kitchener-Conestoga MPP Leeanna Pendergast, and Ken Seiling, Waterloo Regional Chair, to make an important transit announcement in the Kitchener-Waterloo Region.

Date: Monday, June 28, 2010

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Location: Region of Waterloo Administration Building
Main Lobby
150 Frederick Street
Kitchener

[Urbanomicon]

I hope so too. The media advisory didn't say anything specific, but what else could it be (aside from GO Trains):

Ellen coming to KW? :rolleyes:

[GGHTransit]

I don't think this annoucement will be LRT, the province supposedly already committed their 2/3 share a while back (couple years ago) did they not? the issue with LRT is the feds holding out, and it doesn't seem they're appearing at this one. I could be completely wrong, but I'm putting my bet on GO Trains.

[Spokes]

Ya I thought they had given funding as well. GO would make sense considering Milloy was just talking about it a couple days ago. Either way I'd be happy.

[mpd618]

I don't think this annoucement will be LRT, the province supposedly already committed their 2/3 share a while back (couple years ago) did they not? the issue with LRT is the feds holding out, and it doesn't seem they're appearing at this one. I could be completely wrong, but I'm putting my bet on GO Trains.

Provincial promises were made prior to the project being approved and finalized by the Region. At this point we're ready for the actual cash.

[jay]

Ontario pledges $300M towards rapid transit in Waterloo Region


June 28, 2010
RECORD STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES
WATERLOO REGION – Ontario is providing the Region of Waterloo with $300 million to build rapid transit.

The project would be the largest single investment in transit infrastructure in the history of Waterloo region and includes light rail transit in both Waterloo and Kitchener, and bus rapid transit in Cambridge, according to a media release.

These transit improvements will, according to the release:

• better connect the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge.

• link to Grand River Transit and park and ride facilities.

• connect to future GO Transit services.

This investment is expected to create about 3,000 jobs and economic opportunities for local businesses.

More coming at www.therecord.com


Great news, maybe this can get stared soon

[UrbanWaterloo]

Awesome news and a good turnout down here (150ish)

[bcwessel]

Ontario pledges $300M towards rapid transit in Waterloo Region


June 28, 2010
RECORD STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES
WATERLOO REGION – Ontario is providing the Region of Waterloo with $300 million to build rapid transit.

The project would be the largest single investment in transit infrastructure in the history of Waterloo region and includes light rail transit in both Waterloo and Kitchener, and bus rapid transit in Cambridge, according to a media release.

These transit improvements will, according to the release:

• better connect the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge.

• link to Grand River Transit and park and ride facilities.

• connect to future GO Transit services.

This investment is expected to create about 3,000 jobs and economic opportunities for local businesses.

More coming at www.therecord.com


Great news, maybe this can get stared soon

When should we expect some details about how this affects the project, as it is detailed in the official proposal? I believe the original promise from the province was for 525 million, so this announcement isn't necessarily a positive thing. It kind of sounds like we're getting the same response on LRT that Toronto got on Transit City: "Here's half of what you need, and it's your problem to try and make it work." I also don't really understand how the Liberals can pat themselves on the back for creating jobs by spending money in one breath, and in the next tell everybody that the way to get out of a recession is to tighten the belt and weather the storm.

This announcement is better than nothing, but I'm pretty concerned about the ways in which the reduced funding will adversely change the project. I don't understand how this can even be considered the same project, if that extra 225 million isn't coming from another source.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Largest Transit Expansion In Waterloo Region's History
McGuinty Government Supporting Rapid Transit, Creating Jobs
June 28, 2010 9:00 AM | http://news.ontario.ca/mto/en/2010/06/largest-transit-expansion-in-waterloo-history.html

Ontario is providing the Region of Waterloo with $300 million to build rapid transit.

The project would be the largest single investment in transit infrastructure in the history of Waterloo region and includes light rail transit in both Waterloo and Kitchener, and bus rapid transit in Cambridge.

These transit improvements will:

better connect the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge
link to Grand River Transit and park and ride facilities
connect to future GO Transit services.

This investment is expected to create about 3,000 jobs and economic opportunities for local businesses. It will also increase public transit use, reduce gridlock, improve air quality and build a stronger community.

Investing in public transit is part of the McGuinty government's Open Ontario plan to strengthen our economy by creating more jobs and opportunities for growth.

QUICK FACTS
Waterloo Region is a fast growing community in Ontario with a population of more than 500,000, projected to grow to 729,000 by 2031.
With this investment, the McGuinty government has committed $372 million towards expanding and improving public transit in Waterloo Region since 2003.

QUOTES

"We are committed to supporting public transit in Waterloo Region to increase public transit use. Investing in public transit is a big part of our government's Open Ontario plan to strengthen our economy, and create more jobs and growth by being open to change and opportunities."
– Kathleen Wynne, Transportation Minister

"This is significant and exciting news for the Region of Waterloo and local residents. Investing in innovative local transit networks is good for the environment and our quality of life."
– John Milloy, MPP for Kitchener-Centre

"Building better public transit will benefit our economy, our communities and our environment. This is exciting news for our community."
– Leeanna Pendergast, MPP for Kitchener-Conestoga

"We are pleased that the Province of Ontario has made a commitment to rapid transit in Waterloo Region. If we are to move into the future, we need a transit system that speaks to less urban sprawl, an attractive alternative to the automobile, and more respect for the environment we all share. Today's announcement will hopefully lead to a further commitment from the Federal government which will allow us to begin the necessary planning to move ahead."
– Ken Seiling, Waterloo Regional Chair


Public Transit Funding For Waterloo Region
June 28, 2010 9:00 AM | http://news.ontario.ca/mto/en/2010/06/public-transit-funding-for-waterloo-region.html

The McGuinty government is committed to helping Waterloo Region increase its public transit use, reduce gridlock, improve air quality and build stronger communities.

With today's investment, Ontario has committed more than $372 million in expanding and improving public transit in Waterloo Region. Providing these much needed funds during tough economic times also creates jobs and supports local businesses.

Since 2003, these commitments, in addition to the provincial funding commitment of $300 million towards Waterloo Region's Rapid Transit project, include:

$4.7 million in transit expansion funding through Ontario's Transit Technology and Infrastructure Program (TTIP) to support the purchase of additional buses, the construction of bus and passenger facilities, and the implementation of advanced transit technologies
$44.8 million in provincial Gas Tax funding since 2004
$5.37 million in Transit State of Good Repair funding in 2008 for renewal of transit vehicles and infrastructure
$12.2 million in transit vehicle funding for the purchase of buses
$4.3 million in 2006 and 2010 that could be used to support the purchase of replacement buses
$1 million towards an environmental assessment for the Waterloo Region's Rapid Transit project.

The Province has committed funding towards Waterloo Region's existing rapid transit plan. As the Region assembles funding and considers project refinements, it will need to provide updated plans to the Province for review.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Provincial Funding Announcement - June 28, 2010

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Transportation/OntarioLRTFundingAnnouncement-June2.jpg

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Transportation/OntarioLRTFundingAnnouncement-Ju-1.jpg

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Transportation/OntarioLRTFundingAnnouncement-Ju-2.jpg

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Transportation/OntarioLRTFundingAnnouncement-Ju-3.jpg

Ontario Minister of Transportation Kathleen Wynne
http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Transportation/OntarioLRTFundingAnnouncement-Ju-4.jpg

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Transportation/OntarioLRTFundingAnnouncement-Ju-5.jpg

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Transportation/OntarioLRTFundingAnnouncement-Ju-6.jpg

John Milloy, Kathleen Wynne, Ken Seiling, Leeanna Pendergast
http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Transportation/OntarioLRTFundingAnnouncement-Ju-7.jpg

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Transportation/OntarioLRTFundingAnnouncement-Ju-8.jpg

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Transportation/OntarioLRTFundingAnnouncement-Ju-9.jpg

[UrbanWaterloo]

Ontario Minister of Transportation Kathleen Wynne

X-nQAaHcsL4

[IEFBR14]

So where are the feds and their money?

[UrbanWaterloo]

This announcement is better than nothing, but I'm pretty concerned about the ways in which the reduced funding will adversely change the project. I don't understand how this can even be considered the same project, if that extra 225 million isn't coming from another source.

Originally we were looking at a Federal, Provincial & Municipal partnership. Back in 2007 (http://www.news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2007/06/moveontario-2020-projects.html) the province upgraded their portion to 2/3rds of the projected cost, this was also at a time when lower figures for the entire project were being talked about (iirc ~$400-million range). The province must have balked at either the now higher cost or the provincial recession and decided to only fund $300-million. It still is a huge chunk of change and a positive contribution to our local transportation network. How do we make up the difference? We go back to that original 3-way partnership, with the municipal government being a large contributor again.

Perhaps something like this:
Province: $300-million
Government of Canada: $300-million (already initially supported ~$150-million but will now need to upgrade their contribution)
Region of Waterloo: $200-million (already have set aside $25-million)

[KLM]

The Province has committed funding towards Waterloo Region's existing rapid transit plan. As the Region assembles funding and considers project refinements, it will need to provide updated plans to the Province for review.

ok ,arent those plans already submitted to province for review and approved?

[bcwessel]

Personally, I would like to see a company like RIM (read: RIM) put up a substantial investment for this project. Logic dictates that this plan will become a significant component of the company's official draw package, and they (and the rest of the hi-tech sector) should be expected to contribute accordingly. I would have absolutely no problem riding the RIM Rapid, and I'm sure the same could be said for many technology sector employees in the region, both existing and future. Similar strategies have been employed with great success in places like Cleveland, and I for one would like to see RIM's regional footprint take a more prominent shape than their now-trademark suburban campus.

[Urbanomicon]

The Province has committed funding towards Waterloo Region's existing rapid transit plan. As the Region assembles funding and considers project refinements, it will need to provide updated plans to the Province for review.

ok ,arent those plans already submitted to province for review and approved?

I think it's the province's way of saying "We're not giving you all the money you asked for, start scaling back your plan."

As for the Feds, now that the provincial government has stepped up to the plate, I figure we will hear from them sometime after the G8/G20.

[bcwessel]

Also, I can't wait to read lil' Jeffy's public meltdown over this announcement, which we will inevitably see gracing the hallowed pages of The Record in the next day or two. He's probably sitting underneath his desk right now, gently rocking back and forth, clenching his knees to his chest, and desperately hoping that this is all some sort of big misunderstanding. Actually, I'm assuming that he'll roll out the old "we should just spend the money on more buses" routine that he's now infamous for parroting over and over and over...

[dunkalunk]

The Rapid. Kind of has a nice ring to it. I don't mind as much if RIM ponies up the dough to buy the naming rights to one of the stations serving their office park, but to have the entire line named after them would only cause Doug Craig's head to explode.

[Urbanomicon]

I don't mind as much if RIM ponies up the dough to buy the naming rights to one of the stations serving their office park, but to have the entire line named after them would only cause Doug Craig's head to explode.

You say this as if that's a bad thing? :D Maybe he'll resign in protest.

[bcwessel]

You say this as if that's a bad thing? :D Maybe he'll resign in protest.

Maybe he and Jeff Outhit will start their own city, which will likely be located somewhere along Hespler Rd. It'll have a mini oval highway in the middle of two massive suburban homes, each complete with plenty of front-facing surface parking. It'll also have a giant sign that reads: "It's not fair!" which will be visible from space.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Here's the region's piece...

http://region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/646992a6b2d4dea085256e590071a3e9/a6f62c59df6d59e085257750004b45c5/Body/0.EC!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

Province announces funding for rapid transit in Waterloo Region
June 28, 2010 | http://region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/$All/A6F62C59DF6D59E085257750004B45C5?OpenDocument

http://region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/646992a6b2d4dea085256e590071a3e9/a6f62c59df6d59e085257750004b45c5/Body/0.51FA!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=jpg
Seated left to right: Ken Seiling, Regional Chair, the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Minister of Transportation, Leeanna Pendergast, MPP Kitchener-Conestoga
Standing left to right: Doug Craig, Mayor of Cambridge, Carl Zehr, Mayor of Kitchener, Sean Strickland, Regional Councillor, the Honourable John Milloy, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Minister of Research and Innovation and MPP Kitchener Centre, Jane Mitchell, Regional Councillor, Tom Galloway, Regional Councillor, Bill Strauss, Mayor of Woolwich, Wayne Roth, Mayor of Wilmot.

The Province of Ontario today committed $300 million towards the capital cost of constructing a rapid transit system in Waterloo Region.

“We are pleased that the Province continues to recognize the importance of the Region’s rapid transit project, and has made a specific funding commitment to the initial phase of the project,” said Regional Chair Ken Seiling.

In June 2009, based on the extensive evaluation and analysis conducted during the Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment, Regional Council:

Approved a light rail transit (LRT) system from Waterloo to Cambridge as the Region’s long-term preferred rapid transit system;
Recognized that a staged implementation would be required to ensure the best match of transit technology to ridership and intensification potential; and
Approved the initial phase of the project which includes LRT from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall and adapted bus rapid transit from Fairview Park Mall to the Ainslie Street Terminal in Cambridge.

“Light rail transit, implemented in stages, is the best environmentally and financially sustainable solution to help manage our community’s future growth and the region’s transportation needs,” said Seiling.

Now that the Provincial government has announced their specific funding for the project, the Region will be seeking a matching funding commitment from the Federal government as soon as possible. This would be consistent with the announcement in July 2008 by both the Provincial and Federal governments that the Region’s rapid transit project was a priority for funding under the Building Canada Fund. Once the amount of Federal funding is confirmed the Region will be able to move forward with the planning and design of the project.

[KLM]

I like idea that RIM ( and other hi-tech companies) step in with funding. Then that way they would really give to community.

Scaling back? So that means major revision to existing plan.Does anybody knows if that happens how revised LRT line would look like then?

[mpd618]

Scaling back? So that means major revision to existing plan.Does anybody knows if that happens how revised LRT line would look like then?

I don't think any scaling back is going to be discussed until we see what the Feds are willing to pony up. If there's $190 million left over for the Region, it can be easily fitted into a modified version of the Regional Transportation Master Plan -- maybe by postponing a few road projects.

[bcwessel]

I don't think any scaling back is going to be discussed until we see what the Feds are willing to pony up. If there's $190 million left over for the Region, it can be easily fitted into a modified version of the Regional Transportation Master Plan -- maybe by postponing a few road projects.

Given how caged the early responses have been to this announcement from the principles on the project, I suspect that a Plan B is already being actively discussed (assuming there isn't a contingency drawn up for this very circumstance already). I'm going to start bracing for BRT now, to save myself the heartbreak later on.

[mpd618]

The latest Record piece (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/736785) has Conservative transportation critic Frank Klees, well, criticizing the provincial liberals for not giving this project sufficient funding. The federal conservatives sure have an incentive to one-up the liberals.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Remaining Announcement Videos

Leeanna Pendergast
ydkGA_YY_4A

John Milloy
oc8PErjE3AI

Ken Seiling
-I6pwH2TdUY

[IEFBR14]

$300M for transit falls short of earlier provincial pledge (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/736785)
The provincial government committed $300 million Monday towards a new rapid transit system in Waterloo Region – well short of a long-standing pledge to contribute two-thirds of the total cost.

With the overall price tag estimated at almost $800 million, that means all eyes are now on the federal government to see if it comes through with an equal amount of money.

“They now become the key number in what we can do,” Regional Chair Ken Seiling said.

The federal government recently matched $600 million in provincial funding for a rapid transit project in Ottawa. Local officials hope that set a precedent for a similar commitment here.

Based on the Ottawa experience, Seiling said, word from the federal government could come within the next month.

“We fully expect they’ll treat us the same as they did Ottawa,” he said.

Regional council voted a year ago to proceed with a plan — an urban renewal scheme meant to curb urban sprawl — for electric trains linking Kitchener and Waterloo, and fast buses in dedicated lanes to Cambridge.

Both senior levels of government offered encouragement when the project was first proposed several years ago, with the province indicating in 2007 that it would cover two-thirds of the cost.

Neither pledged a specific amount, however, and there were fears their silence meant rapid transit was in jeopardy because of the economic slump.

Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr said the provincial commitment, while less that ideally hoped for, gives hope the project can go ahead.

“If we didn’t have this to build on, the project dies,” he said. “Now it has life.”

Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne made the funding announcement at regional headquarters along with Liberal MPPs John Milloy (Kitchener-Centre) and Leeanna Pendergast (Kitchener-Conestoga).

She said it’s clear evidence the government is behind better public transit to reduce sprawl, pollution and gridlock.

“We don’t have infinite space, we don’t have infinite opportunity,” Wynne said. “We have to make sure we plan intelligently.”

But the amount of the pledge — $300 million versus a two-thirds share of more than $500 million — was blasted by Conservative transportation critic Frank Klees.

“It leaves the community in somewhat of a lurch given the $200 million shortfall that was originally committed by the province back in 2007,” he said. “That’s typical of this government and it’s unfortunate.”

Klees said “it’s indicative of kind of an amnesia when it comes to promises by this government. At some point, I think people are going to hold this premier and this government responsible.”

He said the Liberals should have been able to find the extra money for a priority project. Barring that, they should have looked for investment from the private sector.

Seiling, rapid transit’s main champion, was careful with his comments after widespread praise at the announcement for pushing it this far.

“Obviously, times have changed,” he said of the struggling economy and the province’s lower commitment.

Seiling said the region “never expected 100 per cent to be paid by somebody else” and it was always part of the plan for local taxpayers to pay a significant share of the tab.

Despite the provincial shortfall, he said the system can still be built basically as envisioned, although some modifications might be required to contain costs.

Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig welcomed money from the province, but wondered where the rest will come from. He also repeated his objection that only Kitchener and Waterloo will get light rail transit initially.

“This is not a regional transportation system — not when you leave the second largest city out,” he said.

Craig favours a cheaper system of rapid buses, not trains.

Re, "Craig favours a cheaper system of rapid buses, not trains", what's the problem? Isn't that exactly what Cambridge is going to get under the proposed plan? ;)

[DHLawrence]

I find it more interesting that he wants buses instead but also doesn't want KW only to get light rail. You can really only pick one of those--can't argue for both.

[Urbanomicon]

Re, "Craig favours a cheaper system of rapid buses, not trains", what's the problem? Isn't that exactly what Cambridge is going to get under the proposed plan? ;)

What Doug Craig really means is that if Cambridge can't have it, no one else should have it.

[Spokes]

Awesome news and a good turnout down here (150ish)

Good yes, awesome no. They were supposed to fund 2/3 of the project, this is a bit more than 1/3.



When should we expect some details about how this affects the project, as it is detailed in the official proposal? I believe the original promise from the province was for 525 million, so this announcement isn't necessarily a positive thing. It kind of sounds like we're getting the same response on LRT that Toronto got on Transit City: "Here's half of what you need, and it's your problem to try and make it work." I also don't really understand how the Liberals can pat themselves on the back for creating jobs by spending money in one breath, and in the next tell everybody that the way to get out of a recession is to tighten the belt and weather the storm.

This announcement is better than nothing, but I'm pretty concerned about the ways in which the reduced funding will adversely change the project. I don't understand how this can even be considered the same project, if that extra 225 million isn't coming from another source.

As for how it effects things, it's going to depend on if we get funding from the feds and if so, how much.

With the low amount from the province and that the feds tend to match amounts, this could really hurt the project. I cant see the region putting up the remaining funds considering the amount of opposition. Although I hope Im wrong

[Spokes]

Originally we were looking at a Federal, Provincial & Municipal partnership. Back in 2007 (http://www.news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2007/06/moveontario-2020-projects.html) the province upgraded their portion to 2/3rds of the projected cost, this was also at a time when lower figures for the entire project were being talked about (iirc ~$400-million range). The province must have balked at either the now higher cost or the provincial recession and decided to only fund $300-million. It still is a huge chunk of change and a positive contribution to our local transportation network. How do we make up the difference? We go back to that original 3-way partnership, with the municipal government being a large contributor again.

Perhaps something like this:
Province: $300-million
Government of Canada: $300-million (already initially supported ~$150-million but will now need to upgrade their contribution)
Region of Waterloo: $200-million (already have set aside $25-million)

Do you think the Region could get the support to spend that much though? When the province was going to put forward 500+ million there was concern over the cost. I really hope this doesnt result in the scaling back of the project to a full BRT project

[Spokes]

I think it's the province's way of saying "We're not giving you all the money you asked for, start scaling back your plan."

As for the Feds, now that the provincial government has stepped up to the plate, I figure we will hear from them sometime after the G8/G20.

I think what the province is also trying to say is that "we don't want to fund so much of this, but dont worry people, we're still committed to creating jobs so vote Liberal come next election"

[Spokes]

Given how caged the early responses have been to this announcement from the principles on the project, I suspect that a Plan B is already being actively discussed (assuming there isn't a contingency drawn up for this very circumstance already). I'm going to start bracing for BRT now, to save myself the heartbreak later on.

I'd hate to see it but Im somewhat bracing for it too. Was there a BRT plan drawn up when debating if the Region should go BRT or LRT?

[UrbanWaterloo]

Do you think the Region could get the support to spend that much though?

Yes I do. Regional council just voted last week for a 1.15% - 1.2% annual tax increase for each of the next 5 years (and 1.3% - 1.5% for the next 15 years afterwards) to support transit. Only one councillor opposed that vote. I imagine a vote to spend $200-million on rapid transit will get more opposition, however it will still likely pass. You have to remember this is the region's signature project, their version of Kitchener's EDIF (which was $100-million on a smaller tax base). They had already voted to put a down-payment of $25-million to show they're serious. In the record article above (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/736785): "Seiling said the region “never expected 100 per cent to be paid by somebody else” and it was always part of the plan for local taxpayers to pay a significant share of the tab."

[mpd618]

The new Regional Transportation Master Plan includes $671 million in capital funding for transit, and $719 million in capital funding for roads (over 20 years). I think that $200 million or so to get a tremendously important project fully funded would make a reasonable addition.

[KevinL]

Was there a BRT plan drawn up when debating if the Region should go BRT or LRT?

Yes, there were multiple options during the environmental assessment; various routes considered, some for BRT, some for LRT, some for either.

Just saw CTV's report, they quote Gary Goodyear as hoping for a Federal announcement within 'a couple weeks'.

[Urbanomicon]

I'd hate to see it but Im somewhat bracing for it too. Was there a BRT plan drawn up when debating if the Region should go BRT or LRT?

What about cutting the BRT to Cambridge for the time being and building the LRT as planned?

[mpd618]

What about cutting the BRT to Cambridge for the time being and building the LRT as planned?

The Cambridge segment is not full BRT (which would be almost as expensive as BRT and difficult to replace), but basically iXpress with better signal priority, some bypass shoulders, improved stations, and presumably off-board fare collection. So there's not much to save there on capital costs.

[Spokes]

What about cutting the BRT to Cambridge for the time being and building the LRT as planned?

I dont know, I can't see Cambridge ever agreeing to that.

[Spokes]

The Cambridge segment is not full BRT (which would be almost as expensive as BRT and difficult to replace), but basically iXpress with better signal priority, some bypass shoulders, improved stations, and presumably off-board fare collection. So there's not much to save there on capital costs.

Is there much cost cutting they can do to the LRT proposal as it currently is?

[Waterlooer]

I don't want a BRT. It has to be LRT, and there has to be some way to cut the cost down.

[DHLawrence]

What about cutting the BRT to Cambridge for the time being and building the LRT as planned?

Because the only thing Cambridge deserves more than a half-assed connection is no connection at all!

[panamaniac]

Postpone the UoW to Conestoga Mall leg?

[taylortbb]

What about cutting the BRT to Cambridge for the time being and building the LRT as planned?

The Cambridge aBRT portion is $80 million. It would be a very significant reduction for something that doesn't have a huge benefit (there's no dedicated lanes). However, I believe the largest expense in that are the bus bypass shoulders for 8 and 401, which are already under construction (on part of 8). There however might be $10-$15 million to be saved through some really basic changes, like not building a bus-only off-ramp from highway 8, and letting the aBRT vehicles use the current iXpress routing into Fairview.

[mpd618]

The Cambridge aBRT portion is $80 million. It would be a very significant reduction for something that doesn't have a huge benefit (there's no dedicated lanes). However, I believe the largest expense in that are the bus bypass shoulders for 8 and 401, which are already under construction (on part of 8). There however might be $10-$15 million to be saved through some really basic changes, like not building a bus-only off-ramp from highway 8, and letting the aBRT vehicles use the current iXpress routing into Fairview.

I think the bypass shoulders will be an enormous benefit to operations.

[Urbanomicon]

I think the bypass shoulders will be an enormous benefit to operations.

After the 8 has been widened to 8 lanes, I don't think they'll be needed. As least not for another 10-20 years as I expect traffic will flow nicely.

If the Feds match the province that would provide $600 million which is about $75 million short of what was promised. If cutting the aBRT will save about $80 million dollars than that might work (depending on how much of that has already been spent).

[KayDubya]

After the 8 has been widened to 8 lanes, I don't think they'll be needed. As least not for another 10-20 years as I expect traffic will flow nicely.

If you're right then wont smooth flowing traffic on highway 8 between Kitchener and Cambridge have a major(negative) affect on ridership projections. I'd like to see the plan go ahead as it is but if things must be cut it may be logical to cut aBRT for now, especially if the highway 8 widening does wonders for traffic flow for the next decade.
I'm not sure congestion will be reduced for that long however. I remember driving up the Conestoga after what seemed like years of work to widen it and thinking "man they really over did it' but I was wrong within a couple years traffic congestion was as bad as ever and is far worse now.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

I'd like to see the plan go ahead as it is but if things must be cut it may be logical to cut aBRT for now, especially if the highway 8 widening does wonders for traffic flow for the next decade.

Fine. Just don't expect the people of Cambridge to pay anything towards what will exclusively be your LRT. :rolleyes:


I'm not sure congestion will be reduced for that long however. I remember driving up the Conestoga after what seemed like years of work to widen it and thinking "man they really over did it' but I was wrong within a couple years traffic congestion was as bad as ever and is far worse now.

It's a little like widening your belt to prevent obesity.

[mpd618]

Fine. Just don't expect the people of Cambridge to pay anything towards what will exclusively be your LRT. :rolleyes:

This. Seriously. As much as Cambridge's (or often Doug Craig's) complaints about not getting LRT have been set aside, removing the sole part of the project for the Fairview to Cambridge segment -- and which is supposed to help grow ridership -- is a complete political non-starter. Look elsewhere.

[KayDubya]

Fine. Just don't expect the people of Cambridge to pay anything towards what will exclusively be your LRT. :rolleyes:



It's a little like widening your belt to prevent obesity.I agree with both your statements.
I should have reworded my original post. I really don't think aBRT should be cut out completely. I want the sytem to run all the way to Cambridge and in a perfect world it would be all LRT from the get go.
I was more just curious about ridership between Kitchener and Cambridge if highway 8 was not as congested as it is now. Will enough people get out of their cars if it's smooth sailing on highway 8? Like I said, I think we'll see the highway backed up at rush hour again within a few years of completion.

[mpd618]

I was more just curious about ridership between Kitchener and Cambridge if highway 8 was not as congested as it is now. Will enough people get out of their cars if it's smooth sailing on highway 8? Like I said, I think we'll see the highway backed up at rush hour again within a few years of completion.

Congestion is a main factor in spurring transit ridership -- as long as that transit isn't stuck in the same congestion. But high-quality frequent express transit service can still attract many people -- who would prefer to leave their car at home, who want to save the money, or who are going to or from a destination that is not so easy to drive as the widened Highway 8. Going from Cambridge to downtown Kitchener by bus and well-timed train connection can save you the trouble and cost of parking downtown, for instance.

I believe that most of the ridership on the Cambridge portion of the iXpress is not going across the Grand River, but is between the Cambridge stations.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

Congestion is a main factor in spurring transit ridership -- as long as that transit isn't stuck in the same congestion. But high-quality frequent express transit service can still attract many people -- who would prefer to leave their car at home, who want to save the money, or who are going to or from a destination that is not so easy to drive as the widened Highway 8. Going from Cambridge to downtown Kitchener by bus and well-timed train connection can save you the trouble and cost of parking downtown, for instance.

I believe that most of the ridership on the Cambridge portion of the iXpress is not going across the Grand River, but is between the Cambridge stations.

As someone who rides and has rode the iXpress from Cambridge, I can tell you lots of people cross the Grand River. Perhaps the greater "in-Cambridge" movement you're talking about is true (and I believe it is) if you add route 51 into the equation.

My previous point was about people from Cambridge paying for a service we won't have the benefit of using. If we don't even get so much as a BRT connection, then we have a stagnant level of service while still contributing to an equal portion of KW's LRT project financially. And that is fair, how? KW can't have its cake and eat it too.

And it's this kind of attitude that creates a feeling of discontent in Cambridge with the Region and a desire for political autonomy. It seems that being part of the Region of Waterloo means local government services just get consolidated in Kitchener and our end of the tri-cities is seen as non-existant.

[Spokes]

You're right, it's definitely not fair to ask Cambridge to pay for a service and not receive any of it. They were already getting the short end of the stick with only BRT for now, to give nothing would be ridiculous.

There must be another way of cutting significant costs. Fewer stops and add some in later on down the road? I dont know what individual stations cost though.

Who knows, maybe the feds will match the 300 million and the Region can come up with the last 200? Am I living in a dream world?

[mpd618]

My previous point was about people from Cambridge paying for a service we won't have the benefit of using. If we don't even get so much as a BRT connection, then we have a stagnant level of service while still contributing to an equal portion of KW's LRT project financially. And that is fair, how? KW can't have its cake and eat it too.

It's worth separating out the operating and the capital costs. In terms of planned service increases, I think Cambridge is getting its fair share of transit operations (including light rail / BRT). The cost imbalance comes down to (I would say) to whatever portion of the capital costs the Region pays.

[Spokes]

Straight talk needed on rapid transit plans

June 29, 2010

Waterloo Region’s $790 million rapid transit project is still breathing today — but it’s probably on life support.

While the Ontario government pledged on Monday to invest $300 million in the initiative, that’s far less than what the province originally suggested it would give. Now, even if the federal government matches Ontario’s contribution — and there’s no guarantee it will — regional taxpayers will have to kick in over $200 million. A year ago, estimates for the region’s share ranged from as low as $50 million to as high as $150 million.

The result of all this couldn’t be more clear: If the people of this region want a rapid transit system, they’re almost certainly going to have to pay a lot more for it than any politician ever told them they would.

Saying this does not mean the bold dream of linking Waterloo and Kitchener with light rail transit and Kitchener to Cambridge with rapid buses should die on the planning board. This newspaper stands by its original enthusiasm and support for a new transit system.

The Record believes this kind of public transportation would lay the foundations for a vital, 21st century community that leads Canada in the safe, efficient movement of its citizens, in finding alternatives to automobiles, in environmental stewardship and in smart urban planning.

But regional taxpayers need to know where they stand and where their tax bills will go.

The Ontario government has at least helped clarify the matter by revealing how much it will spend on the trains and fast buses.

It is disappointing that the province cannot give more than $300 million, especially since it declared in 2007 that it would pay up to two-thirds of the cost. Indeed, before that year’s provincial election, Kitchener-Centre’s Liberal MPP John Milloy said in no uncertain words that Queen’s Park would fund two-thirds of the project. Even if you work with the original project cost estimate of $630 million, the provincial government should have at least come through with $400 million.

Cynics will count this as just another failed election promise. Realists will point out that since making its commitment to the region’s rapid transit project in 2007, the provincial government has been side-swiped by the worst recession in a generation and the huge budgetary deficits it has been forced to incur to get out of that recession. When this stark reality is considered, people in Waterloo Region should be more grateful to Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals than they are angry at them.

Yet now that the province has laid down its hand, the federal government must do so, too. And as soon as possible.

In July 2008, the federal Conservatives identified a rapid transit system in Waterloo Region as one of the top four priorities in their $6.2-billion Ontario infrastructure program. More recently, they agreed to match the $600 million the Ontario government will give to a light rail line in Ottawa. The federal government should demonstrate an equal commitment to this region and find $300 million for Waterloo Region’s rapid transit project. Local voters should hope that Cambridge MP Gary Goodyear, who is Minister of State and for the Federal Economic Development Agency in southern Ontario can impress upon the federal cabinet the importance of rapid transit to Waterloo Region.

Even if a $300-million federal grant is impossible, the people of this community deserve to know where the federal Conservatives stand. The less money the federal government puts in, the more regional taxpayers will have to cover.

Major decisions face this community. For its part, the regional government should do its best to let local taxpayers know what it will mean to them and their taxes if they are on the hook for a $200-million-plus rapid transit bill.

After all, as worthy as rapid transit is, no one should expect the taxpayers to climb aboard this project unless they know what the fare costs.

http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/Editorials/article/737132

[DHLawrence]

City still on the curb (http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news/local/article/840120--city-still-on-the-curb)
Mayor: $300M grant for rapid transit plan still leaves Cambridge with just buses
Lisa Rutledge, June 29, 2010

A $300-million grant for rapid transit in Waterloo Region is moving in the right direction, but still leaves Cambridge at the curb, says the mayor.

While Doug Craig is happy to see more money allotted to public transit, he said Monday’s provincial funding announcement doesn’t change the fact that Cambridge will still only get enhanced buses while Kitchener and Waterloo get light rail transit.

“Cambridge is not getting rapid transit,” he said, expressing his disappointment.

Last summer, regional council approved a plan to build light transit from Conestoga Mall in Waterloo to Fairview Park Mall in Kitchener. Bus-adapted transit will continue on to Cambridge’s Ainslie Street terminal.

Meanwhile, Craig said, the city will have to help foot the bill for the new planned rapid transit line for the next two decades.

“After 20 years, we will still not have a rapid transit system.”

As a Cambridge representative on council, Craig has been a vocal opponent of the new transit plan, arguing that light rail routes end before reaching Cambridge borders.

Regional council chair Ken Seiling was elated with the Ontario Minister of Transportation Kathleen Wynne’s announcement, but said he’s still waiting for federal government grants to start the project.

“It’s certainly a key piece of the project. We’ve got one of the two, and we need both to move ahead,” he said.

The public transit project aims to reduce traffic gridlock and gas emissions while also creating jobs via construction .

– with Charlotte Prong Parkhill

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

The province sure seems committed to smart growth when it comes to the stick, but they sure come out looking pretty weak when it comes to the carrot. This is not good for us and it sets a pretty ugly precedent for the province as well.

[KLM]

The province sure seems committed to smart growth when it comes to the stick, but they sure come out looking pretty weak when it comes to the carrot. This is not good for us and it sets a pretty ugly precedent for the province as well.

I agree on this one.I dont like idea that rest taxpayers are going to pay for it ( region).Seems all came to politics and games.

Many people commuting to other cities dont have need ( unfortunate) to use LRT.Its really tricky and for cutting down cost many things can be done.

What makes me wonder is if LRT is done and running how much LRT pass or single fare would be? Not $2.50 for sure.

[zanate]

I wonder if the federal Conservatives who have such a tenuous grasp on the KW ridings will look at the province's lowball as an opportunity, even in the face of the G20 promise to reduce deficits. They could give the liberals a real black eye here by making up the losses.

Doubt it would make some people (like me) vote for them, but it could make a lot of locals vote against the liberals in protest next time and give the Conservatives the ridings again.

[bcwessel]

I wonder if the federal Conservatives who have such a tenuous grasp on the KW ridings will look at the province's lowball as an opportunity, even in the face of the G20 promise to reduce deficits. They could give the liberals a real black eye here by making up the losses.

Doubt it would make some people (like me) vote for them, but it could make a lot of locals vote against the liberals in protest next time and give the Conservatives the ridings again.

I am the furthest thing from a Conservative voter, and in no way self-identify as conservative in any meaningful way. That being said, if the Federal Conservatives point to the Provincial Liberals and ask why they aren't keeping their earlier promises, it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask, and the Cons wouldn't wrong for doing so. It's obvious to the point of being meaningless that politicians will play at politics for their own political gains. If this community benefits from that situation, all the better. In fact, regardless of the motives, governments should be spending money on positives outcomes for communities. I could care less who is signing the check, just so long as this thing gets built as soon as possible.

[Urbanomicon]

My previous point was about people from Cambridge paying for a service we won't have the benefit of using. If we don't even get so much as a BRT connection, then we have a stagnant level of service while still contributing to an equal portion of KW's LRT project financially. And that is fair, how? KW can't have its cake and eat it too.

The $300 million contributed by the province was paid for by people all over Ontario. Should people in North Bay be angry because they are paying for an LRT system they will likely never see much less actually use? This is the same with any federal funding received. At least Cambridge residents that use public transit are likely to take the LRT from time to time. Another example would be people that don't or can't take public transit. They won't see any benefit from it. Should they have to pay? The whole point of having government funded projects is to try to increase the quality of life for the city, region, province, or country. No one benefits from all government spending and to think you should is very short-sighted. The Regional Government governs Waterloo Region. Waterloo Region is seeing a benefit from the LRT. What's the problem here?

[Newgrad]

I think that the people of Cambridge will benefit from this project indirectly. Especially those who commute to Waterloo etc for work, play, pleasure or even the ocassional trip because it could significantly reduce our Region's dependence on the parkway/express/whatever-synonym-you-want-to-use (as a transplanted Northern Ontarian, I'm still not sure I know the proper lingo to fit in with the locals :p).

Those who do not use the LRT will still benefit from it. You might not ride the LRT, but if you use a car in and travel at all within KW, you will still benefit from this project.

[KLM]

problem is ,we taxpayers of waterloo region are going to see increase in our property taxes.There is no way you are going to maintain system from passes and tickets ( same as it goes for GRT funding).

As it is right now I wont be able to take LRT to work, I might take LRT if I go to downtown but thats once in a blue moon ,when I have doctor,dentist appointment ,etc.So at the moment there is no benefit to me and all people who dont work downtown k-w.

[garthdanlor]

What makes me wonder is if LRT is done and running how much LRT pass or single fare would be? Not $2.50 for sure.

I would hope that the LRT fare would be the same as the bus fare with free transfers between both. Likewise, a monthly pass would include travel on both. Anyone heard anything about zonal pricing?

[taylortbb]

As it is right now I wont be able to take LRT to work, I might take LRT if I go to downtown but thats once in a blue moon ,when I have doctor,dentist appointment ,etc.So at the moment there is no benefit to me and all people who dont work downtown k-w.

But, the LRT will form the backbone of an integrated multi-modal transit system. Right now if you live out on route 3 and want to get to Fairview Park Mall, you have to go downtown then transfer. It adds a significant amount of extra time to your trip. Under the realigned system you'll take the Ottawa St route over to the LRT stop, and then transfer to the train in the appropriate direction depending on if you're you're going to downtown or Fairview.

Even for those that don't go downtown there will be significant benefits in transit service.

Cambridge is a little harder. They will see significant benefits from the route realignment, they'll also have a more reliable trip to Kitchener thanks to the bus bypass shoulders. However not all of the benefits will appear. I feel however this is still fair. You can't build transit everywhere at once. The plan is to extend light rail to Cambridge as soon as possible, meaning as soon ridership reaches a reasonable level to support it. When the Cambridge extension is built the entire region will pay for it, just like they will for the first phase. Cambridge's current lower ridership likely means that the Cambridge service area has a lower cost recovery than the KW service area, but we don't area-rate this higher subsidy to Cambridge. It's all one transit system.


I would hope that the LRT fare would be the same as the bus fare with free transfers between both. Likewise, a monthly pass would include travel on both. Anyone heard anything about zonal pricing?

There are no plans in the RTMP for fare zones of any kind. As the quality of transit increases though it is expected that fares will increase, we currently have some of the cheapest transit fares in Canada. These increases should be applied equally to bus and rail.

[mpd618]

problem is ,we taxpayers of waterloo region are going to see increase in our property taxes.There is no way you are going to maintain system from passes and tickets ( same as it goes for GRT funding).

Yep. That increase in property taxes is going to be courtesy of the Regional Transportation Master Plan, which is specifically increasing funding for transit capital funds and transit operating costs (including light rail operation). Light rail / adapted BRT operating costs are going to be a small -- and decreasing -- chunk of the overall figure; that's despite the fact that the combined line will constitute the core line for the Region.

If you want to know what really is expensive -- that's coverage services inside suburban areas that are designed to be difficult to get around, but in which we still try to provide transit as a public good.

[KLM]

Yep. That increase in property taxes is going to be courtesy of the Regional Transportation Master Plan, which is specifically increasing funding for transit capital funds and transit operating costs (including light rail operation). Light rail / adapted BRT operating costs are going to be a small -- and decreasing -- chunk of the overall figure; that's despite the fact that the combined line will constitute the core line for the Region.

If you want to know what really is expensive -- that's coverage services inside suburban areas that are designed to be difficult to get around, but in which we still try to provide transit as a public good.

every public transit system need subvention/subsidy from govt, in this case regional.Its collected from taxes.You are saying costs are going to be small, prove it.

according to you seems people from suburbs dont deserve public transit or they are guilty because they live for example on Huron Rd, not downtown? blame urban planners,city and developers ,they made that scheme. routes can be realigned if region and GRT wants to, you dont need big bucks to spend on that. just more political will and common sense.

[taylortbb]

You are saying costs are going to be small, prove it

The Region had a panel of Canadian transportation planning experts review their ridership projections for LRT. The unanimous conclusion was that they were very conservative projections. I think in light of the RTMP which will massively expand bus service, this is even more true. The RTMP has been approved at a 1% per year tax increase for operational subsidies. That number has light rail operating costs built into it. When fully implemented the RTMP will bring the operational transit subsidy to over $110 million per year. Light rail is projected to require a subsidy of $10 million per year on opening day, and falling over time (more ridership on the same service levels). That doesn't adjust for the savings of the buses we no longer have to run. Adjusted for that the net new operating costs for light rail are even lower. Even if we fall short of conservative ridership projections we're not anywhere close to the bottomless money pit some accuse LRT of being. Even if ridership on light rail was exactly identical to current iXpress ridership the subsidy would be about $15 million per year, not adjusted for saved bus operating costs. I believe it's ludicrous to suggest ridership would be identical to iXpress, the increased frequency, increased stations, and re-aligned bus network guarantee this. Having less than 10% of the transit subsidy being directed to the major arterial service that connects with everything else, the backbone of the system, seems pretty reasonable. Especially given that's the conservative opening day projection.

[mpd618]

every public transit system need subvention/subsidy from govt, in this case regional.Its collected from taxes.You are saying costs are going to be small, prove it.

According to the Rapid Transit project team (http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/faq.html#operating), "The operating cost for the rapid transit system, once farebox revenues have been counted, is estimated to be $10.5 million a year in the opening year of service. The cost recovery of rapid transit will be better than (double) that of GRT buses." That figure should go down with increased ridership, as trains become better used. The modelling showed that providing the same service with iXpress would cost substantially more. For some comparison, Calgary operates a light rail system with ten times the projected ridership here on $40 million a year, not accounting for fare revenue.

Light rail is pretty standard stuff. It is not expensive to operate unless you're running it really in the middle of nowhere. In our case it would be running in a corridor that even now sees 12 buses per hour per direction and carries around 25,000 daily riders. The future holds a network redesign based around the core route, and mandated intensification of core areas around the route.


according to you seems people from suburbs dont deserve public transit or they are guilty because they live for example on Huron Rd, not downtown? blame urban planners,city and developers ,they made that scheme. routes can be realigned if region and GRT wants to, you dont need big bucks to spend on that. just more political will and common sense.

I do blame urban planners for that. And I'm not saying people from the suburbs don't "deserve" transit. However transit in the suburbs is much more expensive, because these are places that are designed neither for walking nor for useful streets. They're low-density and paths from A to B tend to be much longer, so transit is at a serious disadvantage. The facts of North American postwar suburban planning make good transit a difficult (or expensive) proposition.

That said, the Region is indeed going to be realigning routes to focus on arterials, and frequent express service, and good connections -- and eschewing the suburb-to-downtown-hub model that makes for a poor overall transit system.

[UrbanWaterloo]

When fully implemented the RTMP will bring the operational transit subsidy to over $110 million per year.

QFE. This region is doing very well economically. We have the lowest office vacancy rate in the country (http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php/192-Real-Estate-Statistics), and the 2nd highest employment rate in Ontario (http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php/431-Labour-Force-%7C-May-2010-Employment-260-500-(66-4-)). Our current GDP is around $25-billion, and should be at least $40-billion (in today's money) twenty years from now. There's no question we can afford this project, all it comes down to is political will. Despite any issues we have with councillors from time to time, overall they did vote for a huge transit increase, something urban promoters should all be proud of. If that's not proof of political will behind light rail transit, then I'm not sure what is.

This is just a rough outline of what regional councillor voted for. No doubt the total amount of money will be higher due to population growth, inflation, and economic growth.
http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss203/UrbanWaterloo/Transportation/P-10-059.jpg


In our case it would be running in a corridor that even now sees 12 buses per hour per direction and carries around 25,000 daily riders.

Again QFE. This is a corridor that's growing by thousands of new residents and employees.

[Spokes]

I am the furthest thing from a Conservative voter, and in no way self-identify as conservative in any meaningful way. That being said, if the Federal Conservatives point to the Provincial Liberals and ask why they aren't keeping their earlier promises, it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask, and the Cons wouldn't wrong for doing so. It's obvious to the point of being meaningless that politicians will play at politics for their own political gains. If this community benefits from that situation, all the better. In fact, regardless of the motives, governments should be spending money on positives outcomes for communities. I could care less who is signing the check, just so long as this thing gets built as soon as possible.

Yup, I see nothing wrong with the question being asked, and the Liberals would do it to the Conservatives if the situation were reversed. Hopefully the money comes from the feds, like zenate said to make the Liberals look bad


problem is ,we taxpayers of waterloo region are going to see increase in our property taxes.There is no way you are going to maintain system from passes and tickets ( same as it goes for GRT funding).

As it is right now I wont be able to take LRT to work, I might take LRT if I go to downtown but thats once in a blue moon ,when I have doctor,dentist appointment ,etc.So at the moment there is no benefit to me and all people who dont work downtown k-w.

As previously mentioned, taxes are going up regardless of this, so they should take that tax revenue to use for LRT

I wonder how it'll effect the use of UPass

[mpd618]

I wonder how it'll effect the use of UPass

The better service becomes, the more students will use it -- which means fewer students paying in but not using. So expect renegotiated agreements every few years for higher pass prices.

[dunkalunk]

Won't Presto replace the UPass when it comes here?

[taylortbb]

I expect it will replace the physical cards, I doubt the discounted bulk-buy pass concept is going anywhere though.

[DHLawrence]

You should read all the invective being heaped on this project at UT--thoroughly entertaining!

[panamaniac]

UT?

[mpd618]

UT?

UrbanToronto (http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?13353-Waterloo-to-get-300-million-for-Rapid-Transit).

[KLM]

UrbanToronto (http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?13353-Waterloo-to-get-300-million-for-Rapid-Transit).

Thanks for link.Interesting discussion.

What surprised me that there was tunnel planned.It wont happen ( too bad in my opinion) probably because cost too much and all those improvements on King St that happend lately.

[Urbanomicon]

Won't Presto replace the UPass when it comes here?

What's Presto?

[taylortbb]

What's Presto?

Metrolinx's fare smartcard, https://www.prestocard.ca/ . It's become more than just Metrolinx though, as OC Transpo and GRT will both be adopting it.

[Urbanomicon]

Metrolinx's fare smartcard, https://www.prestocard.ca/ . It's become more than just Metrolinx though, as OC Transpo and GRT will both be adopting it.

Nice. It's like a Tim Card for transit.

[Section ThirtyOne]

Rather than adopting yet another e-money format (and another card in my wallet), why wouldn't GRT look at installing Mastercard Paypass or something of that nature?

Might as well leverage something that a lot of people already have.

[bcwessel]

Thanks for link.Interesting discussion.

What surprised me that there was tunnel planned.It wont happen ( too bad in my opinion) probably because cost too much and all those improvements on King St that happend lately.

If I recall correctly, they scrapped the underground portion of the project in part due to the high cost, but more-so because they felt that the street presence of LRT is a strong incentive for future development -- one of the key goals of the project as a whole.

[taylortbb]

If I recall correctly, they scrapped the underground portion of the project in part due to the high cost, but more-so because they felt that the street presence of LRT is a strong incentive for future development -- one of the key goals of the project as a whole.

It's certainly a solid reason. Originally I liked the idea of going underground to avoid the route splits, but looking at experiences in other cities with how streetcars/LRT vs subways shape development I think it's better to be surface running. At some later point in time it can be converted to a subway. Look at Bloor vs Sheppard in Toronto. Those original streetcars caused development to be lower density, but more continuously urban, rather than small pockets of high density.

I think an underground station at King and Victoria still makes sense though. That way it can integrate with the multi-modal terminal, rather than having the platforms be south of Victoria (which is required because of grade, seeing as they're going under the north mainline).

[KLM]

yes I agree ,wouldnt make any sense at the moment to go underground ,tunnels, bridges what drives cost up in these projects. Seems region pushing that `wow` factor for LRT to be seen as much as possible.

as for King/Victoria that would be good since GO Train will be in place sometime next year but not only that would be nice to see for vehicle traffic as well.Just a wish for King/Victoria ,I think they have proposed and probably will be in works for tunnel under rail tracks on Weber St for vehicle traffic.

[KevinL]

Metrolinx's fare smartcard, https://www.prestocard.ca/ . It's become more than just Metrolinx though, as OC Transpo and GRT will both be adopting it.

GRT will definitely do so? I hadn't heard.

ANd such smart cards are de rigeur elsewhere; London's Oyster, Hong Kong's Octopus, etc. are indelible parts of their systems.

[mpd618]

GRT will definitely do so? I hadn't heard.

It's planned for around 2013, I believe. Basically as soon as Presto can handle it.

[TripleQ]

Rather than adopting yet another e-money format (and another card in my wallet), why wouldn't GRT look at installing Mastercard Paypass or something of that nature?

Might as well leverage something that a lot of people already have.

Probably because of the fees a credit card would charge... doesn't make sense for $2 transactions.

Most other transit cards around the world are of the "stored value" type like a gift card that you reload with larger amounts.

[bcwessel]

Probably because of the fees a credit card would charge... doesn't make sense for $2 transactions.

Most other transit cards around the world are of the "stored value" type like a gift card that you reload with larger amounts.

If the Oyster system in Southern England (upon which Presto is based) holds any indications about what the service might become, there will be plenty of opportunities for brand-specific Presto cards. (Credit providers like Barclay's have plenty of Oyster-integrated products which simply add your transit costs to your monthly statement, which I'm sure appeals to many users.) However, limiting the entire system to one corporate carrier inherently excludes many people from participating. What makes the Presto system potentially so exciting is that, when fully developed, users will be able to get on a bus or train in Waterloo, transfer to a GO/VIA inter-regional, travel as far away as Ottawa, transfer to a local route once there, and never once need to buy a paper ticket. If individual users are able to choose from an array of products within this system, all the better. But, mono-branding individual participant systems within the greater network detracts from the overall usefulness of program as a whole.

[garthdanlor]

This is great news. I love the idea of having an Oyster type card that could be used all over Ontario. One thing I was wondering was if you are using the smart card within a flat rate system like GRT would you have to touch in and out as you would in a zonal fare system like that which exists in London, or just touch in when you get on the bus/train? I suppose it would be useful to have users touch out for use statistics. How would transfers work? Would the system simply not charge if it detects that you have already been debited for a journey within the past X minutes (say 90)? Can't wait.

[taylortbb]

This is great news. I love the idea of having an Oyster type card that could be used all over Ontario. One thing I was wondering was if you are using the smart card within a flat rate system like GRT would you have to touch in and out as you would in a zonal fare system like that which exists in London, or just touch in when you get on the bus/train? I suppose it would be useful to have users touch out for use statistics. How would transfers work? Would the system simply not charge if it detects that you have already been debited for a journey within the past X minutes (say 90)? Can't wait.

It will be tap-on only. It automatically detects if you're transferring and doesn't charge you. If GRT ever gets a co-fare agreement with GO in place then Presto will support that too. I wouldn't count on it though, it's suburbs that GO is really interested in co-fare for.

Presto does however support a tap-off configuration for GO transit, so it's possible other transit agencies could adopt that model. For GO you can either tap-on and tap-off, or you can set a default trip on your card and only tap-on. That requires a registered card, and you have to do an override before tapping-on if you're not doing your default trip.

[plam]

This is great news. I love the idea of having an Oyster type card that could be used all over Ontario. One thing I was wondering was if you are using the smart card within a flat rate system like GRT would you have to touch in and out as you would in a zonal fare system like that which exists in London, or just touch in when you get on the bus/train? I suppose it would be useful to have users touch out for use statistics. How would transfers work? Would the system simply not charge if it detects that you have already been debited for a journey within the past X minutes (say 90)? Can't wait.

I have an OPUS card from Montreal, which is a tan-on system. Transfers do work as you said: you tap in, and if it's a transfer, it doesn't charge you.

One thing about the Montreal cards is that you still need to put separate money onto the cards for each transit system you use (e.g. the South Shore transit requires separate tickets from the Island of Montreal tickets).

[LivingOnVictoria]

I think this is a brilliant idea. The timing couldn't be more perfect. This project i believe will be beneficial long term in many ways. I look forward to more updates