Light Rail Transit

[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






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


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.




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



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/lo...-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...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....invitation.pdf


Shortlist of Routes - June 11, 2008: http://transitea.region.waterloo.on...._-_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




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

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.


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 >>

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/stor...re-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/57ad7...il_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 explaining the system and a video (13.6MB wmv) to help illustrate the concept, nevermind the overarticulation.
Bordeaux

PRIMOVE

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/Porta..._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



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=UTF...04549&t=h&z=15
Victoria Station Grade Separations: http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF...0e717&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/lo...ail-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....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....IT_SYSTEM2.pdf
Preferred Route: http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo....nnections2.pdf

Click to enlarge


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.


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/b...o-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/t...ithin-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

2031 - 729,000 (Places to Grow)

3) Urban Growth - Real Estate Statistics

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



Fourth Quarter 2009



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/...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/b...le-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/insi...igh-speed-rail

[jay]

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