Greater Golden Horseshoe Transit

Waterloo Region Rapid Transit

176 posts in this topic

At the Region of Waterloo's Planning and Work Committee Meeting on Wednesday, it was announced that Phase 2 of the Region's Rapid Transit EA is beginning. The Region is studying various rapid transit options to meet the need for controlled, higher-density growth in the core areas of the Region, as well as facilitating greater transportation choice from residents and visitors to the Region.

Under study are various transit technology options, a pass/fail system will be used to create a short-list of technology options to be used for further study. The "long" list of technology options currently consists of...

Dedicated On-Road (separate bus/rail lane); Dedicated Off-Road (transitway/rail line);

Mix of On and Off Road

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – buses operating in some form of exclusive transit lanes;

Light Rail Transit (LRT) – uses rail technology for vehicles in an exclusive off-road right-ofway,

exclusive on-road route or mixed on-off road route, and using overhead electric or

hybrid diesel-electric propulsion;

Dedicated Off-Road (separate rail line)

Commuter Rail – typically involves locomotives hauling a train of passenger cars in a rail

right-of-way, sometimes sharing track with freight trains;

Diesel Multiple Units (DMU) – self-propelled rail cars using diesel propulsion in an exclusive

rail right-of-way;

Grade Separated (either above or below ground)

Aerobus – vehicle suspended from cables;

Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) – uses fully automated

driverless trains with fully grade-separated operations typically on an

elevated guideway;

Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) – where the vehicle is magnetically

lifted, guided and propelled by a wave of magnetic energy on an

elevated guideway;

Monorail – fixed guideway transit mode using a series of electrically

powered vehicles that straddle atop, or are suspended from a single

elevated guideway beam ( appealing to my former alias of Grand River Monorail ;) );

Personal Rapid Transit System (PRT) – electrified driverless car

usually designed to move small numbers of people over short

distances; and

Subway or Metro (heavy rail) – typically grade separated high capacity passenger rail cars

operating in trains of two or more cars with electric propulsion on fixed rails in an exclusive

right-of-way.

There will be several opportunities for public comments on the RT EA, the first Public Information Centre (PIC) will be held on September 21, at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, 54 Queen St. N., Kitchener, 6-9 p.m.

-PDF File of handout to be distributed at the PIC... http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/regio...pdf?openelement

-PDF File of the Region's Latest RGMS (Regional Growth Management Strategy) Newsletter (HOLY COW, they have a Monorail on page 7!!!)... http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/regio...pdf?openelement

-Region's Rapid Transit EA Wesbite... http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/transitea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see they are actually doing something for a change !!!!

Hopefully when they do get something up and running, it wont be a huge disappointment like the iXpress was !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Was" or "is" John ? ;-)

Haha, IS !!

The iXpress has been going downhill since 5:40AM on September 6th 2005,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is a news article about the recent RT EA Public Open House (of which Yours Truly attended :rolleyes: )

Transit talk draws crowd

No shortage of ideas at session studying better ways to get around Waterloo Region

JEFF OUTHIT

KITCHENER (Sep 22, 2006)

Residents are excited, curious and full of opinions about rapid transit.

Almost 200 packed a church basement last night, to provide input into a $2-million transit study by regional government.

Jack Dueck recently retired to Waterloo from Boston, where he liked the rapid transit system. "You never need the car," he said.

He attended to learn about transit options and barriers.

"I like the subways, because it gets all the traffic off the roads," he said. "It's really expensive, but it's really the way to go."

Seth McDermott of Kitchener rides Grand River Transit to his Grade 8 class. "Subways are great, but frankly, it's really expensive to get them underground," he said.

He's a fan of the electric rail system in Calgary.

Larry Gorman of Waterloo is thinking about how to link trails to transit. This would help people travel across Waterloo without needing a car.

"If you've got a rapid transit system, then you can have a connectivity system," he said.

Adam Lauder of Waterloo is a graduate student in planning. He agrees rapid transit is needed to meet provincial targets for making this community more compact.

But what kind?

The most likely options he sees are rapid buses or electric trains. Trains are more costly, but may do a better job luring homes and jobs. "But again, I'm not decided," he said.

Councillors have said they want an electric train system, above ground and separated from traffic. It would cost $306 million in its first phase, linking Kitchener and Waterloo.

Technologies still under study include surface trains, subways, rapid buses, a monorail, driverless taxis and some more exotic systems.

The rapid transit study is expected to conclude next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the Region of Waterloo's Planning and Work Committee Meeting on Wednesday, it was announced that Phase 2 of the Region's Rapid Transit EA is beginning. The Region is studying various rapid transit options to meet the need for controlled, higher-density growth in the core areas of the Region, as well as facilitating greater transportation choice from residents and visitors to the Region.

Under study are various transit technology options, a pass/fail system will be used to create a short-list of technology options to be used for further study. The "long" list of technology options currently consists of...

Dedicated On-Road (separate bus/rail lane); Dedicated Off-Road (transitway/rail line);

Mix of On and Off Road

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – buses operating in some form of exclusive transit lanes;

Light Rail Transit (LRT) – uses rail technology for vehicles in an exclusive off-road right-ofway,

exclusive on-road route or mixed on-off road route, and using overhead electric or

hybrid diesel-electric propulsion;

Dedicated Off-Road (separate rail line)

Commuter Rail – typically involves locomotives hauling a train of passenger cars in a rail

right-of-way, sometimes sharing track with freight trains;

Diesel Multiple Units (DMU) – self-propelled rail cars using diesel propulsion in an exclusive

rail right-of-way;

Grade Separated (either above or below ground)

Aerobus – vehicle suspended from cables;

Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) – uses fully automated

driverless trains with fully grade-separated operations typically on an

elevated guideway;

Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) – where the vehicle is magnetically

lifted, guided and propelled by a wave of magnetic energy on an

elevated guideway;

Monorail – fixed guideway transit mode using a series of electrically

powered vehicles that straddle atop, or are suspended from a single

elevated guideway beam ( appealing to my former alias of Grand River Monorail :blink: );

Personal Rapid Transit System (PRT) – electrified driverless car

usually designed to move small numbers of people over short

distances; and

Subway or Metro (heavy rail) – typically grade separated high capacity passenger rail cars

operating in trains of two or more cars with electric propulsion on fixed rails in an exclusive

right-of-way.

There will be several opportunities for public comments on the RT EA, the first Public Information Centre (PIC) will be held on September 21, at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, 54 Queen St. N., Kitchener, 6-9 p.m.

-PDF File of handout to be distributed at the PIC... http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/regio...pdf?openelement

-PDF File of the Region's Latest RGMS (Regional Growth Management Strategy) Newsletter (HOLY COW, they have a Monorail on page 7!!!)... http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/regio...pdf?openelement

-Region's Rapid Transit EA Wesbite... http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/transitea

For the PRT thing, it won't happen before 2100 AD, though I'm dreaming of it happening before then. Someday it'll be operated by a transit system named after you.:lol::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, thought the GRT thread was getting a little cumbersome, and since the RT system for Waterloo Region is being finalized I thought a thread dedicated to it alone would be more appropriate, we can leave the other thread for the regular GRT stuff.

Link to Region's RT website, includes reports, maps, videos etc. http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/

Since the release of the final proposed system I have the following comments (I also posted these on Skyscraper Page Forum)...

1) I support the rail corridor alignment in Waterloo over King Street, 'according to the report' the Rail alignment will attract more ridership and will be quicker in terms of travel time. In addition the plans for the R&T Park assumed the eventual construction of a Rapid Transit Station near Wes Graham Way.

2) I don't know what sites the Region has looked at but I think a good Maintenance Facility Site lies just east of Phillip Street on land currently owned by Ratheyon (400 Phillip Street) near the R&T park since they only use about half of the land they own (the site is a large empty parcel in the centre of the block bound by Albert, Phillip and Columbia). A spur line to the mainline could be easily fit between 435 Phillip Street and 419 Phillip Street/176 Columbia Street West

3) I believe that the Uptown Waterloo Area Station should be at Willis Way in Both directions (Caroline and King).

4) Ensure a large intermodal facility is constructed at King/Victoria, intergrating GO/VIA, Intercity Buses, LRT and GRT Buses. The Collins-Aikman/IAC building is up for sale and the Beer Store/Korean Grocery Store should be bought as well. This will also require closure of the Charles Street Terminal (almost gauranteed already since service by a one-way station to the existing terminal would be pointless).

5) The Duke/Ontario Station should be moved 1 block to Duke/Young. The Young Street/Gaukel Street Axis is ennvisioned by the City of Kitchener as an important link across the Downtown core, it would also benefit riders since the stations would lie essentially on the "same road corridor" only two blocks apart (Making the best of an unpleasant situation IMO).

6) A major Park and Ride facility should be built at Sportsworld Station, it's the closest station to the 401 and would attract riders from Out of Town. The lot should sit on where the existing Highway Ramps are by the Water Tower (the lot could surround the Water Tower). The MTO's Highway 8/401 interchange plans show these ramps being moved across the road, they could have a single signalized intersection for both the ramps and the Park & Ride Lot onto Sportsworld Drive. I would also have them build a pedestrian Bridge overtop of Highway 8 connecting the lot near the twin-pad arena of the Sportsworld Crossing Site.

7) I would add one, just ONE, more stop to the system near Riverside Park/King & Eagle in Preston. I really don't know how to describe 'politey' how silly it is to travel through Preston, yet not make the stop there for access to the core area or provide for connections to local bus services in the area, and there's already higher-density residential development at King/Eagle with potential for more in the area. Who agrees with me on this??

8) The GCI/Samuelson Street Stop should plan for the potential for GO Rail Service to connect to it in the long-term, making transfer between them easy.

Comments???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I said this in the other thread, but I'm not much of a fan of the Duke/Charles split. It's two blocks between stations. As a transit rider, I like to get on the train for my return trip near to the same spot where I got off. If you put it too far away, it just gets confusing. I know that downtown has some interesting issues, but as the report says

The system being considered is expected to serve the Region for the very long term -

perhaps the century. Given the permanence and magnitude of investment, the panel

strongly advocates that short-term considerations such as difficult traffic engineering

challenges or utility relocations should not dictate the RT alignment. Further, the panel

recognizes that some short to mid-term automobile capacity reductions (or more generally

auto disincentives) are desirable to fully achieve the goals of the RT investment.

Could they not have worked out some way to move the two closer together? It's also interesting that neither of the directions is on King Street, which means people are just going to go around it on their way through downtown instead of stopping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will repeat my suggestion from the other thread and say that the two lane section of King St. in the downtown should be converted to a transit mall. Drivers can use charles, duke, or weber.

And Charles terminal needs to die ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will repeat my suggestion from the other thread and say that the two lane section of King St. in the downtown should be converted to a transit mall. Drivers can use charles, duke, or weber.

And Charles terminal needs to die ASAP.

I do like this idea a lot, but I would worry about the future of the downtown businesses without auto traffic. Wide sidewalks, transit, and bike lanes would make this area a lot more friendly. I think that encouraging drivers to use Duke and Charles was detrimental when they made those streets one way and that's a big reason for changing them back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at the Waterloo public consultation this week, and while most of the information was the same as what I had already seen, I was pleased to hear the intended frequency of the system. The plan is for 7.5 minute frequency in 2014, which I was honestly not expecting. Since one of my biggest issues with the system is transfers and the time spent waiting for buses, this should at least help. The other bit of information that I found interesting is that GRT may not be the operator for the rapid transit system. For some reason, I had always assumed it would be GRT, but that has yet to be decided. Any idea who else it could be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was at the Waterloo public consultation this week, and while most of the information was the same as what I had already seen, I was pleased to hear the intended frequency of the system. The plan is for 7.5 minute frequency in 2014, which I was honestly not expecting. Since one of my biggest issues with the system is transfers and the time spent waiting for buses, this should at least help. The other bit of information that I found interesting is that GRT may not be the operator for the rapid transit system. For some reason, I had always assumed it would be GRT, but that has yet to be decided. Any idea who else it could be?

That remains to be seen, from what I was told at the Kitchener PCC is that they're studying the options for Public-Private Partnerships for the system, I expressed my (and I personally believe our union's) position that the system be operated under the GRT banner with our members/regional employees. I was told that the study, which will conclude next year, is a requirement of the federal government as a condition of the funding of the overall RT EA. Having said all that, the rep I spoke to about it says there is logic in having everything under one banner and that these studies usually recommend a private partnership in the form of the Private Partner desigining and building the system (ie. Bombarider, Siemens, Alstom or someone else) and that Operation and Maintenance could then be under the municipality (ie. GRT). Now it's by no means gauranteed, and there are examples of Privately run systems out there (ie. York Region's VIVA), but I wouldn't mind having a shot at driving one of the trains and not losing my position as a regional employee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since todays announcement we might as well get a separate Forum started for the Region of Waterloo "Light Rail"

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/772099

Feds fund rapid transit but local costs still well beyond $200M

TheRecord.com - Local

By Jeff Outhit, Record staff

KITCHENER — Regional government is getting up to $265 million from the federal government to help pay for a proposed transit system that would put electric trains in Kitchener and Waterloo.

Combined with $300 million in provincial funding, council remains up to $235 million short of project costs, based on an estimate of up to $800 million.

Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig and Coun. Tom Galloway of Kitchener say this is too heavy a bill for local taxpayers to swallow. Coun. Jane Mitchell of Waterloo is also concerned about local costs.

They figure council may now have to downsize trains or reconsider cheaper rapid buses.

Other options that could emerge include forging ahead with the plan as proposed, or seeking private partners to share costs and reduce public expenses.

Chamber of Commerce spokesperson Art Sinclair, a rail transit supporter, also figures politicians need to take another look at the plan in light of local costs.

But rail advocate Tim Mollison wants council to go ahead, saying electric trains are the best option even at the anticipated cost.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced federal funding Thursday in Kitchener, saying it’s up to local politicians to determine the best transit plan.

“As Waterloo Region grows, so do the traffic jams,” Harper said. “Of all the solutions, public transit is the best.”

Council has proposed electric trains as a re-urbanization scheme, meant to draw homes and jobs to underdeveloped neighbourhoods in urban cores. Cambridge would get fast buses, linking to trains in Kitchener.

Ontario didn’t meet its pledge to pay two-thirds of project costs. The federal government is following its practice of paying up to one-third of project costs.

Regional Chair Ken Seiling said the next council, elected Oct. 25, will have to review options after transit planners crunch numbers and consider scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recieved this afternoon from the Director - Rapid Transit;

It is my pleasure to share with you some important news about the Region of Waterloo's rapid transit project.

Below you will find the news release from today's announcement.

Nancy Button

Director, Rapid Transit

The Government of Canada announces funding for rapid transit in Waterloo Region

(September 2, 2010) The Government of Canada will provide one-third of eligible costs, up to $265 million to support the construction of the Region's rapid transit project. Prime Minister Stephen Harper came to Waterloo Region today to make the announcement.

"We are pleased that the Federal government recognizes the importance of the Region's rapid transit project, and has made this funding commitment to the initial phase of the project," said Regional Chair Ken Seiling.

In light of the Federal government's funding commitment today and the Province of Ontario's commitment of $300 million, the Region can now move forward with the planning of the project's scope, design details, cost and Regional funding options. The goal will be to identify the Phase 1 project that provides best value to the community and is affordable to Regional taxpayers given the available federal and provincial funding. Regional staff will evaluate various options for consideration and final decision by Regional Council.

"Now that we know the amount of the federal and provincial funding, we can proceed to determine the best balance between available funding and the long-term, best interests of our community," said Regional Chair Ken Seiling.

In June 2009, based on the extensive evaluation and analysis conducted during the Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment, Regional Council:

. Approved a light rail transit (LRT) system from Waterloo to Cambridge as the Region's long-term preferred rapid transit system;

. Recognized that a staged implementation would be required to reflect the financial resources required and to ensure the best match of transit technology to ridership and intensification potential; and

. Approved the initial phase of the project which includes LRT from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall and adapted bus rapid transit from Fairview Park Mall to the Ainslie Street Terminal in Cambridge.

For more information on the rapid transit project, please visit the website at www.region.waterloo.on.ca/rapidtransit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feds give transit plan $265M

By Jeff Outhit, Record staff

KITCHENER — Politicians are having second thoughts about expensive electric trains, after the federal government put up to $265 million into a proposed rail transit system.

Senior government funding now tops out at up to $565 million. That’s for a system costing up to $800 million for electric trains in Kitchener and Waterloo and buses in Cambridge.

The local share now stands at up to $235 million and taxpayers can’t afford it, councillors said Thursday.

Politicians said they will be looking for options to reduce local costs. This may include revising the rail plan, or switching to cheaper rapid buses linking all cities at a cost of up to $585 million.

“The current plan to my mind is not affordable,” said Coun. Jim Wideman of Kitchener. “Rapid buses, for me, for sure it’s on the table.”

“We have to go back to square one,” Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig said.

“I think we’re looking at rapid buses. That’s what we should be doing.”

“We have to kind of go back to the drawing board,” said Coun. Tom Galloway of Kitchener. “I will not support $235 million coming from the local taxpayers. That’s not affordable. So you have to look at either reducing the scope of the project … or you could go to an entirely bus-based system.”

Coun. Sean Strickland of Waterloo describes the current rail transit proposal as nearly dead. “It’s too much to ask of the local taxpayer,” he said. He expects buses to get another look.

If local costs stay at $235 million, regional taxes could rise by 8.6 per cent to build and operate rail transit.

This is based on financing estimates published in 2009.

Regional Chair Ken Seiling expects the next council, elected Oct. 25, will decide how to proceed after transit planners prepare options. Options may not be finalized until after the election.

“This region is financially very healthy and capable of taking on additional debt,” he said.

Seiling urged councillors to think hard about abandoning rail transit, arguing that trains will help intensify neighbourhoods, reduce urban sprawl and ease road spending.

“The price is too steep for regional taxpayers,” said Coun. Jane Brewer of Cambridge. She’s prepared to consider alternatives such as buses.

Coun. Jane Mitchell of Waterloo worries about rising taxes and said buses may be the way forward.

Wellesley Mayor Ross Kelterborn said buses make sense because they’re more flexible.

Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran said she’s concerned about local costs and has heard from many concerned residents. “I am supportive of looking at bus rapid transit,” she said.

Coun. Jean Haalboom of Kitchener said she supports rail transit but the plan may have to be delayed until taxpayers can afford it.

Councillors applauded the federal contribution announced Thursday, even as support for rail transit faltered. Ottawa is contributing a standard one-third of eligible project costs.

Current estimated costs include $790 million to build the proposed system plus $10 million pledged by council to help move Cambridge toward trains. Trains were first proposed in 2002.

Councillors had planned on senior governments paying almost the entire bill. But the province capped its contribution at $300 million, failing in its pledge to pay two-thirds of rapid transit costs.

Potential options include revising the rail plan to make it cheaper, finding private partners to share costs, and reconsidering rapid buses.

Rapid buses, earlier rejected, would include dedicated lanes in all three cities. It’s estimated funding for senior governments could cover up to $495 million for rapid bus costs, leaving local taxpayers facing $90 million.

This is based on the province providing $300 million and the federal government providing $195 million.

Councillors say provincial funding will stay at $300 million even if the plan changes. Federal funding will change depending on the final project and is planned at one-third of eligible costs to a maximum of $265 million.

In announcing federal funding, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he’ll trust local politicians to choose the best transit plan.

“It is true that the rail lines are more expensive, and it is true that they’re most suited to larger cities,” he said.

But it also makes sense for a growing community to make long-term plans and build transit for the future, not just for today, Harper said.

The current proposal calls for electric trains on segregated tracks between Conestoga Mall in Waterloo and Fairview Park mall in Kitchener, which would be linked to fast buses that would drive in traffic through Cambridge.

The reurbanization scheme is meant to draw jobs and homes to underdeveloped neighbourhoods along the urban spine of the region. It could launch by 2015.

Critics contend rapid buses would do a good job of moving people at much less cost. Rail advocates counter that buses would not attract buildings, jobs and homes and would draw fewer commuters from their cars.

“We’re going back to square one,” Chamber of Commerce spokesperson Art Sinclair said.

The chamber, representing Kitchener and Waterloo businesses, has backed rail transit but Sinclair said a local cost of up to $235 million is a “pretty considerable commitment.”

“We’re still very much committed to a rapid transit system of some type,” he said. “Maybe it might be scaled down. Maybe it may involve more emphasis on buses.”

Rail advocate Tim Mollison, of the Tri-Cities Transport Action Group, wants council to stick with its rail plan.

“We don’t have room for another Conestoga Parkway down the centre of our city,” he said.

jouthit@therecord.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken Sieling's comments from Thursday's announcement regarding the LRT:

http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/regio...pdf?OpenElement

Comments

Regional Chair Ken Seiling

September 2, 2010

Government of Canada Rapid Transit Announcement

Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper

Prime Minister, Minister Finley, Members of Parliament, Members of Regional and area

Councils, and friends of Waterloo Region and rapid transit,

I would like to first thank you Prime Minister for coming once again to Waterloo Region

where you are no stranger. The fact that you personally would come to make this very

important announcement speaks to your understanding of the importance of this Region

to the national economy and of your Government’s understanding that good local

infrastructure linked to a forward looking community stands at the base of Canada’s

future economic success.

It is always a pleasure to have Minister Finley here. I had the pleasure of working with

her on a Habitat for Humanity site a week ago and recognize her partnership in dealing

with community housing. I would like to thank all of our local MP’s, Steven, Peter,

Harold and Gary for their tireless work on our behalf. They understood early the

importance of this project.

This is an important and growing Region, one that will see significant growth in the years

ahead and one that will play an important part in the future economic success of our

country. Regional Council clearly recognized that we had to deal with the projected

growth and created a new growth management strategy, building on former strong

Regional plans. The growth strategy had at its core a desire to curb urban sprawl by

protecting agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands and intensifying urban

growth. It also had as one of its objectives a goal to reduce the growth of automobile

dependency in the face of large scale population growth. Central and critical to the plan

was the development of a rapid transit system down a central transit corridor first

identified more than 35 years ago but never acted upon until the Region assumed

responsibility for transit.

When Regional Council adopted the growth management strategy in 2003, one of the

first steps was a feasibility study jointly funded by the Region and the Government of

Canada which said such a project was viable and would give us the tools to shape our

growth, better manage our transportation, and improve our environment. The subsequent

Environmental Assessment study and its recommendations were passed last year.

Today’s announcement is a welcome next step. Over the next few months, options for

implementing the rapid transit system will come to Regional Council so that it can make

the necessary decisions on the project.

ALSO:

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=3618

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has been posted, but just wanted to share:

GRT bus drivers want say in LRT debate

Drivers with Grand River Transit say building on the existing network to create a bus rapid transit system might be a better first step than light rail transit (LRT).

Driver Ron Penner says ‘They're expecting to drive ridership when they put [the LRT] in. I think they should get ridership up and create the demand for something like that."

But drivers say they weren't consulted, and the union claims it didn't start discussions with members on a bus rapid transit system (BRT) because it lacked information the LRT.

Monica Menner is the chief steward for CAW Local 4304, she says "we had to actively seek out [LRT] information from management, that's why there's a delay in us discussing it."

The Region of Waterloo disputes claims that the union wasn't consulted, saying both the CAW and the public were consulted over the last four to five years.

Thomas Schmidt, commissioner of transportation and environmental services, says "There have been numerous opportunities through open houses, public meetings for CAW to be involved."

He says the region has provided the union with information on the LRT and BRT options they are pursuing, and they are still open to input on rapid transit from the CAW.

Menner says she can't "confirm or deny" claims that discussions on a BRT system are tied to the drivers' union's preparations to renew its contract with the region.

http://swo.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews...20/?hub=SWOHome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey everybody i see that rapid buses are back on the table here is the link

http://www.570news.com/news/local/article/...ck-on-the-table

I was at that council meeting and heard all the councillors speak prior to passing that motion. It doesn't mean they've decided they want BRT, it means they want to staff to show them the numbers on LRT vs BRT. Even the extremely pro-LRT councillors were in favour of this so they can better justify their position. Building BRT is no more or less possible than it was prior to the motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's good to hear.

Why? So staff and consultants can waste more time to come back with the same answers they already gave? This isn't going to give BRT an edge; it will simply add additional clarification as to why LRT was chosen over BRT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LMFAO! ................ all I'm going to say is "good luck with your train"

We'll take it as a challenge then. :P

I got responses from Ken Seiling, Jane Mitchell, and Jean Haalboom, and all three supported my idea of publicizing the LRT proposal more thoroughly to the public. Nothing from Carl Zehr yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LMFAO! ................ all I'm going to say is "good luck with your train"

Well if that's all you can say, then I think the good luck isn't needed. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now