Light Rail Transit

[DHLawrence]

I don't know about the Franklin bus, but the 51 Hespeler Rd bus used to do the downtown circuit. If they trimmed it back to the terminal, there was probably a reason.

[Daev]

I don't know about the Franklin bus, but the 51 Hespeler Rd bus used to do the downtown circuit. If they trimmed it back to the terminal, there was probably a reason.

I believe the reason was as MPD suggested, the creation of the Hespeler Terminal. Which made sense from the point of view that they needed to segregate the Hespeler Rd. route. This was because the expanding size of Hespeler required a wider and wider loop through the village. Eventually it became so long that the Hespeler Rd. bus took 30-45 mins to just circle the circumference of the entirety of Hespeler.

So eventually they cut back that ultra-long route and made it end at the terminal, making separate routes for Hespeler village. But what doesn't make sense is the illogically short (for a bus) distance between Hespeler Terminal and the Smartcenter Terminal. When service reductions happen, they typically are done to the Hespeler Terminal connecting bus. What MPD says that does make sense, is that they should instead of ending Hespeler Road at the terminal, loop it through the downtown Hespeler core. That area is still relatively central to all who live here, more so at least then a Wal-Mart plaza on the other side of the 401 (which also doesn't accommodate pedestrians/bicyclists as mentioned earlier).

[KevinL]

Back on Phase 1, the Staff procurement recommendation report (pdf) is now online. The first 8 or so pages are the meat of it; essentially, staff feel that enough controls on the purse-strings would keep a private operator enough in line that we'd still get the community control over the service that we need. I'm not convinced, personally, but read for yourself and see.

[plam]

Back on Phase 1, the Staff procurement recommendation report (pdf) is now online. The first 8 or so pages are the meat of it; essentially, staff feel that enough controls on the purse-strings would keep a private operator enough in line that we'd still get the community control over the service that we need. I'm not convinced, personally, but read for yourself and see.

I guess that's true as long as the contracts are drafted such that the Region can actually stop the flow of money without getting sued; money does talk. This situation calls for good lawyers (and not people who can't read contracts e.g. some past City of Waterloo staff).

[Pheidippides]

Perhaps I missed it in the posted document, but hypothetically, could someone explain what would happen if the phase 1 of the LRT DFBOM contract was won by firm A and the phase 2 of the LRT DFBOM contract was won by firm B?

Would firm A and B operators be allowed to operate vehicles on each other's section of the system? Would there be two maintenance yards? Two levels of customer service? Two levels of maintenance standards? Two levels of operator compensation?

[zanate]

Perhaps I missed it in the posted document, but hypothetically, could someone explain what would happen if the phase 1 of the LRT DFBOM contract was won by firm A and the phase 2 of the LRT DFBOM contract was won by firm B?

Would firm A and B operators be allowed to operate vehicles on each other's section of the system? Would there be two maintenance yards? Two levels of customer service? Two levels of maintenance standards? Two levels of operator compensation?

This is a concern that isn't addressed, but acknowledged as a disadvantage of DBFOM and DBFM. Practically speaking... you have lock-in. Separate maintenance and operation is impractical on any extension of the same line, and this gives a private incumbent an effective barrel to put the region over during negotiation.

In part, this is why shorter operating terms make sense... You need competition to get cost savings out of private enterprise, and while we could arguably have competition at tender time even with DBFOM@30yrs for Phase 1, it goes out the window for Phase 2.

[KLM]

Perhaps I missed it in the posted document, but hypothetically, could someone explain what would happen if the phase 1 of the LRT DFBOM contract was won by firm A and the phase 2 of the LRT DFBOM contract was won by firm B? Would firm A and B operators be allowed to operate vehicles on each other's section of the system? Would there be two maintenance yards? Two levels of customer service? Two levels of maintenance standards? Two levels of operator compensation?

I am not convinced with two level system will work. Also could be this way: one company owns LRT vehicles, second owns tracks and so on.

[mpd618]

I am not convinced with two level system will work. Also could be this way: one company owns LRT vehicles, second owns tracks and so on.

Just so everyone is clear, there is no proposal for any private ownership of any portion of the LRT system. The Region would retain ownership of tracks, vehicles, and facilities in all scenarios.

[Danielle.Babcock]

LRT Information Session Update



The tri-city region held three public information sessions last week to answer questions about the proposed Light Rail Transit project.

About 100 citizens attended the information sessions nightly, according to Acting Director of Rapid Transportation, Nancy Button.

Button said, compared to the last information session these meetings have been more low-key.

“There’s not as much resistance,” she said.

One of the main questions asked is how the LRT plans to build ridership. Button explained the expanding bus route has already contributed to gaining transit ridership.

“We started it years ago by putting in the iXpress as a precursor to light rail. And that’s been very successful. Ridership on the iXpress has grown hugely.”

There are some people questioning the project, but overall the response has been positive.

Button believes that the LRT will have a huge impact on how the region grows.

“We will need it to move people and keep the region as a sustainable place and good place to live,” she said.

In order to keep the region economically healthy, Button said that LRT will contribute to lifestyle the younger generation wants; to live, work, and socialize in the downtown core.

“If we don’t provide the kind of environment the youthful cohort wants, they’re not going to be interested in staying here. They’re going to go to Toronto,” said Button.

Other projected benefits of the project include efficient and more environmentally friendly travel. The first phase of the project is slated to begin May 2012.

For more information on LRT please visit: http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/

[Pheidippides]

Deloitte made a presentation to council about the procurement strategy/option at a special meeting of council today that may clear up a few questions for some.

A replay should appear here:
http://regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...sp?_mid_=24370

[KevinL]

Peter Shawn Taylor is skeptical of the P3 - but not for the usual reasons.

http://www.therecord.com/opinion/col...r-just-a-fling

Yes, he thinks it should be more like the 407. Because that's a success.

[ViewFromThe42]

It's not that clear. He points out that the 407 is able to do what it does because it controls access and cost, whereas under the Region's P3 proposal any private operator would have to deal with the Region setting schedules (access) and fares (cost).

[zanate]

I agreed with PST's concerns up until the point where he decided that the solution was more privatization. Say what?

The Region mandating wages of the private operator's employees? That seemed like a poor way to get any benefit out of having a private operator. The Region having control of fares and schedules? That is absolutely essential, but PST would sacrifice that for operator profitability.

Which brings us around to goals and objectives. Is our goal to have a profitable train? In which case, sure: operate it at rush hour as a commuter line and shut it down the rest of the time. But what if is the goal to provide a transit service that thousands will choose to rely on and build their lives around, instead of depending on their cars and pressuring our road network and suburbs into expensive expansion? If that is the goal (and it is) then profitability of transit is secondary to popularity, and popularity means depending on it even during non-profitable hours.

And this is what PST does not get. In complaining about MAE and insisting we take only look at the dollars and ignore qualitative benefits, and in attempting to cast subsidized transit as an evil if it can't turn a profit while turning a blind eye to subsidized roads and sprawl development that won't be able to pay for its own replacement cost, PST has a simplistic, almost childlike worldview where everything would work better if everything was forced to turn a profit, because there is nothing worth investing in unless it spits out more dollar than were put in. No benefit or side effect, direct or indirect, is worth considering.

He's a little like a certain sci-fi author I love to hate: smart, has interesting ideas and communicates them well, but wouldn't understand a second-order effect if it walked right up to him and altered his climate.

[DHLawrence]

The only rail business I know that has succeeded after privatisation is Canadian National. Light rail is not Canadian National.

[Pheidippides]

Disappointing so many councilors were absent for an important vote. When you add in the abstentions for conflicts that's a pretty big decision being made by a very small proportion of council.

How they voted

Yes to seeking a private partner for rail transit (8): Cambridge Coun. Jane Brewer, Kitchener Coun. Tom Galloway, Wellesley Mayor Ross Kelterborn, Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr, Kitchener Coun. Jim Wideman, Kitchener Coun. Geoff Lorentz, Waterloo Coun. Jane Mitchell, Waterloo Coun. Sean Strickland.

No (1): Kitchener Coun. Jean Haalboom.
Absent (5): Woolwich Mayor Todd Cowan, Wilmot Mayor Les Armstrong, Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran, Cambridge Coun. Claudette Millar, North Dumfries Mayor Rob Deutschmann.

Declared conflicts (2): Chair Ken Seiling, Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig.

[KevinL]

My biggest disappointment is that it was a straight vote for DBFOM with no other options on the table. More debate on those aspects would have been healthy here, IMO.

[WaterlooNative]

Disappointing so many councilors were absent for an important vote. When you add in the abstentions for conflicts that's a pretty big decision being made by a very small proportion of council.

How they voted

Yes to seeking a private partner for rail transit (8): Cambridge Coun. Jane Brewer, Kitchener Coun. Tom Galloway, Wellesley Mayor Ross Kelterborn, Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr, Kitchener Coun. Jim Wideman, Kitchener Coun. Geoff Lorentz, Waterloo Coun. Jane Mitchell, Waterloo Coun. Sean Strickland.

No (1): Kitchener Coun. Jean Haalboom.
Absent (5): Woolwich Mayor Todd Cowan, Wilmot Mayor Les Armstrong, Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran, Cambridge Coun. Claudette Millar, North Dumfries Mayor Rob Deutschmann.

Declared conflicts (2): Chair Ken Seiling, Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig.

Is this level of absenteeism normal? It seems like a pretty big decision to skip out on, particularly if things go south (or alternately work out).

[mpd618]

Is this level of absenteeism normal? It seems like a pretty big decision to skip out on, particularly if things go south (or alternately work out).

It's a bit high. I believe Les Armstrong was there briefly but left, and Brenda Halloran was/is representing Waterloo at an FCM event. Deutschmann has a conflict of interest, so it's a moot point. I don't know about Cowan and Millar.

We all know it would've passed anyway. It's pretty clear that the decision to go with some flavour of extensive P3 was effectively made a long time ago. This is evidenced by the strict timeline the project is on -- the massive amount of work in the specification, bidding, and award process means that the official timeline only has construction start in summer 2014 (e.g. see this report from October 2011). That timeline only makes sense if you've already decided that there would be a long-term P3 contract.

[FuturePhd]

This is some real Grade A Rhetoric:

http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/674870--artist-brushes-off-rail-transit-plan

[DHLawrence]

That's one artist to cross off my decorating list...