Fight The Good Fight
Recently, I contacted Nicholas Kevlahan, a member of Hamilton Light Rail. They are a group of concerned citizens and local business people who are lobbying local government to install light rail into Hamilton streets rather than bus rapid transit lines. Through a steady publicity/educational campaign, Nicholas and his group have turned LRT in Hamilton from a “maybe sometime in the future”, to a “top priority” in the eyes of local politicians and business leaders.
The benefits of light rail transit are numerous. Here are just a few of them:
- They bring new investment along their lines. A streetcar line was installed along a twelve mile stretch of road in an abandoned industrial neighbourhood known as the Pearl District in Portland, Oregon. Almost immediately, over one hundred new businesses came to the neighbourhood along the track, as well as seven thousand new residents. The return of investment was over two thousand percent, and the new businesses garnered a large amount of tax revenue for a once cash strapped city. Now, Portland is known as one of the most desirable places in the US to live.
- Streetcars have a much longer lifespan than buses, and are cheaper to maintain. Their operating costs are far lower, since there is a much larger driver to passenger ratio. Some expanded streetcars can carry up to three hundred passengers at a time. Streetcars can also be scaled up or down to suit ridership requirements, and attract new riders. Buses have their set capacity, with no flexibility in the event of increased ridership. Ottawa, who implemented a Bus Rapid Transit system is now running at over capacity, and is seriously looking into having a LRT line built to suit demand and reduce traffic gridlock, which is a chronic problem in our nation’s capital, as it is here in Windsor.
- The environmental benefits are numerous. Buses expel diesel fumes into the atmosphere and their idling in traffic causes even more particulate matter to invade our lungs. A streetcar has no emissions, because it runs on totally clean electricity. Some say the increased generation of electricity to accommodate an LRT line causes increased air pollution, but there really isn’t any comparison. Street-level pollution is a chronic problem in Windsor, and an LRT line would help curb some of these problems. Streetcars are also wheelchair and limited mobility accessible since they are at grade with the surrounding pavement.
I realise that in many cases here, I am preaching to the converted, but the numbers still totally amaze me. Having a LRT system is proven to improve the economy, improve the downtown core and increase the quality of life in every city they are used.
Six other cities in Canada are planning on establishing a LRT system. We, as a city should not be left behind this time. This time, let us be willing to spend money to make a great deal of money back in the long run.
A LRT system would boost the local manufacturing economy as well. In Portland, the city re-opened the once abandoned Oregon Ironworks to build and maintain streetcars. It is common practise for cities to build and maintain their own fleets.
Windsor is now behind several cities in many different facets of liveability and quality of life. In order to attract new business and people, which should be city hall’s primary concern in these dark days, we should be more than open and passionate about establishing an LRT line, coupled with well maintained bike lanes.
People like Nicholas Kevlahan and the HLR give me hope an inspiration in these dark days. They were a group of people who saw something that needed to be changed, and by a massive publicity campaign that educated even the most doubtful resident, they were willing to effect a change in mentality in their blue collar city. It shows what passion, education and stick-to-itiveness will do given the right direction, and the right group of people.
In every conflict there are two opposing sides. On one side, there is us; the people who want a better Windsor, a Windsor we can show as an example of what could happen if the issues we face are conquered not by violent or disruptive means, but by education, civic involvement and awareness.
On the other are those of us who are stuck in the past, who refuse to let go of the 1956 dream of endless gasoline and endless suburban homes on quiet cul-de-sacs, where everyone is making good, unending money and consumerism is not a choice, it is a birthright.
These people style us as “weirdos” and “naysayers”, but we know the truth, and we know we are right. Deep down, somewhere past the nacho chips and the professional wrestling they know that they are wrong and that having an LRT system will improve the city in a multitude of ways.
Streetcars are much more than a conveyance; they are sexy.
I encourage everyone who wants an LRT system to begin writing letters to the editor of the Star with me, and writing local politicians and business leaders. This will cause a groundswell of discussion and people will start to see the multitude of benefits of LRT coming back to Windsor. Engage in a discussion and then debate your point, and keep fighting the good fight.
http://www.hamiltonlightrail.com/
Eddie Francis - mayoro@city.windsor.on.ca
Dave Brister - dbrister@city.windsor.on.ca
Drew Dilkens - ddilkens@city.windsor.on.ca
Ron Jones - rjones@city.windsor.on.ca
Caroline Postma - cpostma@city.windsor.on.ca
Alan Halberstadt - ahalberstadt@city.windsor.on.ca
Fulvio Valentinis - fvalentinis@city.windsor.on.ca
Ken Lewenza, Jr - klewenza@city.windsor.on.ca
Bill Marra - bmarra@city.windsor.on.ca
Jo-Anne Gignac - joagignac@city.windsor.on.ca
Percy Hatfield - phatfield@city.windsor.on.ca
Or, you could call the mayor’s office, if you like it the old fashioned way - Tel. (519) 255-6315
Tags: economic development, investment, local economic development, transportation costs
Post Feedback
Great article (as always) Brendan. Beating the LRT drum again!
Now… if LRT can do that much for the Pearl District imagine what it could do for downtown and other down-on-its-heels urban areas of Windsor?
Thank you JCS! Just imagine… the benefits are innumerable
FINALLY! someone on scaledown finally did a post dedicated to light rail! thank you!
More transit, fewer roads in city’s new master plan
Road projects worth hundreds of millions could be shelved, cancelled to help pay for light rail, buses
Jake Rupert
The Ottawa Citizen
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Ottawa road projects will be postponed for years or cancelled to help pay for the city’s new mass-transit plan, if city council follows its staff’s advice.
On the block are proposals to widen the Airport Parkway, Highway 174, Campeau Drive, Prince of Wales Drive and Eagleson Road.
The suggestions were included in the city’s new master transportation plan, which was presented yesterday.
If council passes and follows the plan, it will bring the city into the 21st century with a focus on mass public transit over roads, city planners say.
Staff are still proposing to build $666 million worth of roads over the next seven years, but almost all of them are in growing suburbs and would largely be paid for by fees collected from developers.
Typically, the city spends about $150 million a year on roads; the plan calls for that to be chopped to $95 million, with the savings spent on transit.
Together with a new official land-use plan to be released later this month, the transportation plan will help shape what the city will look like and how people will get around.
The goal is a “compact, transit city,” planners say.
The deputy city manager for planning and transit, Nancy Schepers, said both plans are focused on bringing real “smart growth” to the city. The goal is to limit sprawl and the costly new roads, sewers and other services that go with it, emphasizing development along transit lines.
The plan also includes recommendations on how to proceed with the light-rail plan, and for better cycling and pedestrian routes.
Ms. Schepers said she believes if the city follows the recommendations, “all citizens for the next 100 years” will benefit.
Under the plan, the spine of the light-rail system, including a downtown tunnel, would be built in three phases over 20 years, as the money becomes available.
The first phase, costing $1.7 billion, would see the construction of a downtown tunnel with a light-rail line running through it and along the current bus Transitway from Blair Road to Tunney’s Pasture. This phase would also see the extension of the Transitway deeper into the suburbs.
The second phase, costing $900 million, would see the construction of a southern light-rail line from Bayview to the South Keys plaza, as well as an extension of the western light-rail line from Tunney’s Pasture to Baseline Road.
The third phase, costing $400 million, would see light rail extended further south and more extensions of the Transitway to serve the suburbs.
The plan doesn’t foresee light rail extending into the east and west suburbs before 2031, but it is possible that could happen sooner if the money becomes available and the suburbs reach density targets to be unveiled in the official land-use plan.
Several things could torpedo the plan, and the big risk is money. All cost estimates are rough and based on 2007 dollars. City finance officials say the municipality can afford one-third of the plan, and they need the provincial and federal governments to kick in a third each.
The plan postpones a north-south light-rail line for several years. That could put at risk support from several councillors who represent southern wards.
The plan will be debated by city council’s transportation and transit committees next week and at city council later this month.
Mayor Larry O’Brien said he supports the recommendations and expects the support of about 17 of 23 councillors when the matter comes to a vote.
He said he understands relying on the provincial and federal governments for funding will be an issue, and he’s willing to look at “alternatives.” He suggested the city might consider a form of a public-private partnership, or “P3″ to get the project moving. A private firm might be interested in investing in the project in return for part of the revenues the system generates,” he said.
“There are all kinds of variations on P3s. Perhaps it’s time to get out of the box on funding.”
Rideau-Vanier Councillor Georges BÈdard, who wants a mass-transit system in place quickly, said he doesn’t think the city can afford staff’s recommendations and doubts the plan will get off the ground any time soon.
He said the $1.7-billion price tag for the first phase, in 2007 dollars, shows the folly of cancelling the city’s old $1-billion plan, which would have started with a rail line running at street level west across downtown before turning south and extending to Riverside South.
“Poor decision-making has left us in one hell of a mess. I don’t think we will get that kind of money, and future councils will be stuck with trying to fund this unaffordable project. We are in a quagmire, and I think we will be in it for quite some time.”
He said he didn’t think the mayor’s P3 suggestion was very helpful. He said if the city comes up short on funding, it would be better to take out a loan to cover the capital costs.
For more on transit plan, See page C1
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=60c4d77d-87ae-4b33-88ff-fb1103d84159
Yes! Brendan and Adriano LRT are the future for Windsor and the county! But I will qualify my Yes to Light Rail Transportation!
It has been discussed here before and on other blogs of this city. I have been a dreamer, proselytizer and advocate of LRT and High Speed Rail for cities and the province for forty years.
My family moved to Toronto in the early sixties and as young teenager the Red Rockets and the Subway gave me a freedom that I have never experienced before, for a few coins, I could travel breathe of Toronto on a Saturday from Woodbine and the Olympic size pool in the east, to the Islands, the Beaches, to the edges of suburbia and everything in between. And nobody had to drive me anywhere.
Six months after moving to Toronto, my dad sold the family car (and that is the last time our family owned a car), he and us kids could walk to the high schools, the one he taught at and one I attended right around the corner. My mom could walk up to Dundas the three blocks and do our grocery shopping or take the Red Rocket to Eaton’s and Young Street to shop, getting on at High Park and Bloor.
Building and widening roads is easy and it seems to the everybody’s panacea for this area where the car is god but can or would we be able to maintain them for twenty, thirty or fifty years, infrastructure isn’t getting cheaper but more dramatically expensive.
Forget peak oil, in today’s dollars a kilometre of new road costs millions of dollars, LRT though expensive to initially build will be cheaper down the…ahem!..the road to maintain. Just look at Detroit and the surrounding counties with their freeway system, they can’t maintain it with their economy tanking as the auto industry dies in Michigan without billions of dollars from the feds!
We were asked by our mayor to “Change the conversation, to dream and to talk to him by “Call Us! Well your worships the mayors we are calling, here’s the first installment!
Have You Driven a Bus or a Train Lately?
By ROBERT GOODMAN
Amherst, Mass.
New York Times
November 16, 2008
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
THE federal government is giving General Motors, Ford and Chrysler $25 billion in low-interest loans, and the companies are asking for up to $25 billion more. These same companies have spent millions of dollars lobbying against federal fuel-economy standards and are suing to overturn the emissions standards imposed by California and other states. In exchange for the loans, Congress should first insist that the automakers stop fighting these standards. But it should also make sure that better outcomes will result from these billions than just fuel-efficient cars.
The Obama administration should ask the companies, as a condition of financial assistance, to begin shifting from being just automakers to becoming innovative “transportmakers.” As Barack Obama’s new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, recently said: “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste. It’s an opportunity to do important things you would otherwise avoid.”
As transportmakers, the companies could produce vehicles for high-speed train and bus systems that would improve our travel options, reduce global warming, conserve energy, minimize accidents and generally improve the way we live.
This better way forward has been kicking around Washington for more than 35 years. In a prescient 1972 article in The Atlantic, Stewart Udall, an interior secretary under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, warned of America’s excessive dependence on cars and called for this approach.
At a time when almost no politicians and industry leaders were paying attention to this problem, Mr. Udall made a bleak but accurate prediction. He wrote that “the oil needs of the other industrialized countries are growing faster than ours” and that this “surge of demand will soon begin to send shock waves through the American economy and transportation system.”
“Unless we exercise foresight and devise growth-limits policies for the auto industry, events will thrust us into a crisis that will lead to a substantial erosion of our domestic oil supply as well as the independence it provides us with,” Mr. Udall wrote. He predicted that the cost of petroleum imports would “give the Middle Eastern suppliers a dangerous leverage over our transportation system as well.”
But Mr. Udall recognized that the country could not afford the economic consequences of losing all of the automobile industry’s jobs and profits. He proposed that the auto companies branch out into “exciting new variants of ground transportation” to produce minibuses, “people movers,” urban mass transit and high-speed intercity trains. Instead of expanding the Interstate highway system, he suggested that the road construction industry take on “huge new programs to construct mass transit systems.” And he called for building “more compact, sensitively planned communities” rather than continuing urban sprawl.
As we now know, warnings like these went unheeded, and Americans became ever more car-dependent. And now, the auto industry is asking for government money that promises, even with more fuel-efficient cars, to give us more of the same. Instead of supporting companies that want to put as many cars on the road as possible, we need a transformational strategy.
As part of its loan package, the government should insist on the development of “transportmaker business plans” from the car companies, with specific timelines for developing more fuel-efficient cars. The companies should also provide detailed plans to transform some of their factories into research and manufacturing centers for the development of light-rail cars and high-speed trains and buses. (In some cases, these could run on existing tracks and on the median strips of Interstate highways; in others, entirely new lanes and tracks would be built.)
Even before Mr. Udall, there was ample precedent for these ideas. In the early 1930s, G.M. joined with other companies to develop the Burlington Zephyr, a radically innovative train that broke world speed records and cut train travel times in half. During World War II, the auto companies converted their factories to build not only military trucks and jeeps, but also airplanes, weapons, tanks and other vehicles. Ford’s Willow Run plant built thousands of B-24 bombers, becoming the world’s biggest bomber plant.
The research and production capacity that the car companies built during the 20th century could be adapted for the needs of the 21st. But other companies should be able to bid for the same opportunities.
Stewart Udall rejected the view that American prosperity depended on Detroit producing ever more cars. The financial crisis gives us a second chance to make his vision happen.
Robert Goodman, a professor of environmental design at Hampshire College, is the author, most recently, of “The Luck Business.”
I would really like to believe that the incoming new president that the above could happen, the bailouts as the auto industry wants won’t change their corporate mindset but forcing them into bankruptcy and severe restructuring will give the above idea a chance.
What was old is new again, it is time to change the paradigm and recognize that more roads, wider roads with ever increasing congestion isn’t the answer for the 21st century.
City of Ottawa’s Light Rail Transit plan:
http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/htsearch?words=light+rail+transit&x=0&y=0
Ok, so, what is the plan? In this period of economic uncertainty I see an opportunity to finally help city and provincial leaders to understand the importance of investing into sustainable growth patterns. Justifying a LRT system might seem difficult over the period of a single fiscal year, but Eddie Francis has already opened the door to ammoratizing an investment over decades. Heck, speaking of opening the door, look at the amount of money the city has invested into the Green Link with much of the tone and tenor around the billion or so dollars to be invested there echoing the same ideals of an LRT system.
1) Decreased traffic and traffic congestion
2) Increase in local jobs
3) Increase in standard of living
(LRTs can promise increase in tax revenues, etc. vs. Eddie’s Tunnel of Love)
Imagine an LRT system, with the PROVEN record of reinvigoration of failing urban neighbourhoods, with the money invested into the Green Link sales pitch behind it. Heck, I’d bet the money invested into the lawyers and propaganda for the Green Link would, alone, build a heck of an LRT system.
It’s all about the sale. So, who is going to put together the data and who is going to make the sales pitch? I think (again, from so far away) that it is time to build action teams around some of these strong, proven ideas, put some experts behind the ideas and really sell the whole “Rebirth of Windsor” idea. Obviously the automotive industry has been proven to be one massive Branch Davidian cult for the city. It is time for Windsor to move past the automotive equivalent of David Koresh and take control of its’ destiny from the messianical madness of fast money and fast cars.
Man, sometimes I miss Windsor …
Josh, the plan is to start a groundswell in discussion, with letters to the editor, letters to local politicians, and then a presentation is drawn up. We go to local government and if they dont bite, we go above their heads. It;’s going to be a hard road ahead because Windsor is so in love with cars, but that love is dying a very painful death.
I dont think the US gov is going to give the detroit three a bailout at all, due to the fact that Bush will veto any decision by congress or the senate against a bailout, and for once, I agree with him. These companies will take that money and need more in two years when they run out of money again, they simply are not profitable businesses, whatsoever.
Will it take the collapse of the way of life that people have known for so long in this city for them to realise that they need another form of transportation in this town? Will it take the s**t hitting the fan before people realise that buses have never brought new riders, have never brought in new business, and are costly to run and maintain?
Sometime you have to lose everything before you can gain anything, and a part of me thinks that has to happen to this city before people can see that change is needed. I hope that people will listen to the letters, the presentations and the discussions that will happen in the next several months. I hope that it wont take the worst case scenario to make this city open its rustbelt eyes.
Brendan, I’m hopeful. I have sensed recently that we are really questioning long held believes and more open to finding the right solutions. Have you noticed the recent letters to the editor and even the editorial pages, they sound a lot like the discussions we have here. By the way, great letter to the editor.
Thank you so much Edwin! I have noticed a shift in reporting as well, with the Star reporting scaledown-esque news stories here and there, as well as A Channel…
Here is a gentleman who HAS done all of the research over the last 30 regarding LRT and overcoming automobile dependance. He may have been mentioned on here before but his name is:
JEFF KENWORTHY
http://www.isocarp.org/fileadmin/data/congresses/CV_picture_Kenworthy.pdf
Had the pleasure of hearing one of his talks recently and he has been working on this stuff for almost 3 decades and has the numbers and facts to prove it. Maybe a great resource to bring into the discussion?
BIO:
Jeff Kenworthy is a Professor in Sustainable Cities, Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute (CUSP), Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. He has worked in the transportation and planning field for over 28 years in comparative urban research, consulting in traffic engineering, private and public transport, urban planning and design, housing and energy. He studies international comparisons of transport and land use in cities; urban form and development patterns and their economic, environmental and social implications; public transport systems; urban design and energy conservation in transport. Recent books include: Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence (Island Press, 1999) and a wide range of journal articles in transportation and planning journals.
Windsor hasn’t even taken delivery on any hybrid buses yet. It doesn’t look good for next year either.
The slow train wreck that is Eddie will continue to halt any new meaningful infrastructure for long term gains.
LRT’s are an excellent idea.
You have to look to the Feds to get anything like this accomplished.
Give Brian Masse a call and see how far he gets.
Remember, everyone, the municipal election is in 2010. A lot can change between now and then, and these councillors know that. We need to get behind councillors and candidates that are passionate about establishing LRT in Windsor where it belongs!
I see it’s time to interject some reality back into scaledown.
Brendan: What chronic traffic gridlock are you talking about in Windsor? It takes me 10 to 15 minutes to travel by car from Fountainblue to downtown. No BRT or LRT is going to improve on that time.
Windsor does not have the population, let alone the density to support an LRT. 20 or 30 years from now, maybe. I would prefer if the fix the existing transit system with more routes and eliminate the the hub concept. Oshawa went to a grid system and ridership increased with little additional investment.
As to Portland, it’s not the transit line that is attracting development, it’s the bonuses, incentives and subsidies along the transit line that are attracting development. While Portland may be one of the most desirable places to live in the USA, the suburbs around Portland grew faster than Portland. But hey, why let facts get in the way, right?
Urbanrat: Are you comparing Ottawa and Toronto with Windsor? Have you checked the population figures of Ottawa and Toronto lately? Oh, wow, they have way more people than Windsor. Plus they have way more jobs located in the central area. They can support rapid transit. Windsor can’t.
Vincent, maybe it is time you looked into things a little deeper as well:
According to a study from the Martin Prosperity Institute, in 2008 Windsor is has a MUCH better population density than Spokane, Washington, a city of just 204,000 that is pushing forward with LRT. Windsor shows a population of 316/km2 while Spokane shows only 97/km2.
Also, if you forsee it being needed in possibly 20 years, why not actually prepare for it now instead of waiting until it is already needed and then being too late and falling behind? We all know things only get more expensive to build as time passes.
Studies (and real life) have shown that time and time again, LRT lines increase property values and spur development whether there are incentives or not.
While I do agree that Windsor may not have the worst of congestion, wouldn’t it be fiscally responsible to ease the load of vehicles on the road, thus extending its lifespan?
Absolutely!
LRT served Windsor-Essex well from 1886-1939. Because this was well before the automobile revolutionized the way we get around. Will Windsor be ready when the automobile returns to being a luxury instead of a birthright? Or will we still be muttering ourselves that we can’t accomplish something on a much smaller scale - even a simple belt line in the core - than our forefathers built over a hundred years ago with much less technology and lower population density.
I’m going to have to question those density figures.
The Spokane figure includes ALL 4,569 sq. km of Spokane County (which has a population of 447,000 not the 204,000 you cite). The Windsor figure is for the Windsor CMA which is 1,022 sq. km in area and has a population of 323,000. Any guess which area has larger sparsely populated areas?
At the city level it appears that Windsor has about 1,700 people per sq. km, while Spokane has about 1,300 people per sq. km. So, I’ll give you the general statement that Windsor has more people per square kilometre than Spokane.
Pushing forward with an LRT? Spokane voters turned down a LRT proposal in 2006. A search on Google did not reveal anything major happening in the past two years. The Inland Empire Rail Transit Association website indicates that the Association made a presentation to Spokane Council in September 2008. Other than that, the issue seems to be on the back burner, or even dead.
What was that about digging deeper?
Vincent,
I believe, fundamentally that we should never say “Windsor can’t” do this and do that, we have to start thinking much, much bigger than we are now. If we don’t think big and treat ourselves like a world class city in the middle of the Chicago/Montreal corridor, we will never become the cosmopolitan center that we really should be. If we have the ameneties of a world class city, including even a rudimentary streetcar system, then we will be setting ourselves up for success. If we continue to wait for something to happen, nothing will.
in 1811, when New York was still a small city of about 200,000 huddled at the foot of Manhattan, the New York State Legislature drew up a massive street grid that covered the entire island called the Commissioner’s Plan. People at the time thought the idea too grandiose, for quaint, old New York but it was because of this plan that New York looks as it does today. Also, all subsequent streets on Manhattan were numbered, instead of named, as they are in lower Manhattan.
Don’t even let me tell you what people thought when a writer and an architect proposed a 700 acre park in the middle of the whole thing…
I also believe that the government should connect Windsor and Montreal with a high speed rail line. Some might say that is a “European” idea, a costly idea, but imagine if you could get to Toronto on a high speed train in about two hours? The implications of this are limitless.
In the simplest terms, we think big at scaledown because someone has to, and we want Windsor to be a much better place to live. I apologize if my article seemed like a vacant, unresearched fantasy to you but I am not afraid to say we deserve the best in this city for us and especially for future generations to come. Building this infrastructure now will definately prepare us for when automobiles are the realm of the rich and the hobbyist. Adriano is right, lets build it now while materials are still cheap and when there are a great deal of people looking for honest work.
Our chronic dependance on the automobile suited us well thirty years ago, but we need to think beyond the automobile. We need to start thinking of ways of conveyance and transportation as a catalyst for attracting business and new people in our city. That is how we will compete in the years to come. I will not sit idly by to see Windsor become another Allentown or Flint due to chasing a dream that has simply passed us by. A streetcar system, along with servicealbe, safe and convenient bike lanes will help make this city more livealbe. When you have a liveable city, people will want to stay here.
In short, we simply must never think that anything isnt good enough for Windsor, or we will be in the same boat we are in now, twenty years on.
And where did I say that it wasn’t a good idea for Windsor. I said MAYBE in 20 or 30 years - I’m partially implying that it MAY be a good idea. That said, why can’t we look at alternatives.
Ottawa has done a terrific job building a bus-based rapid transit system. And they have reached the point where they have to consider going to the next level. It may involve new LRT lines (for the record Ottawa does have a LRT). It will definitely involve building tunnels under downtown Ottawa to separate transit from non-transit traffic.
I gave the example of Oshawa switching to a grid bus system and experiencing excellent results. I believe a similar change in Windsor would have a greater impact on public transit and the environment then an expensive LRT down Wyandotte, Tecumseh, or a future abandoned rail right-of-way.
We may be able to build ‘cheaper’ today than tomorrow, but we all know that the operation of an LRT will be subsidized, so we really aren’t saving any money by building today. The ‘build it cheaper today’ argument could be used for any number of infrastructure projects. It would be ‘cheaper today’ to widen EC Row Expressway to 4 lanes each way. But that doesn’t mean that it should be widened.
Plus how do you justify spending millions of dollars on an LRT when peoples basements are still flooding from combined or over/under sewer systems and we continue to postpone needed road, sewer and watermain reconstruction/replacement? Can we take care of the current problems first?
I don’t mind thinking big. But it needs to be tempered with some reality. After all One Riverside West (aka Canderal Building) was supposed to thinking big. And how did that project turn out?
Let me ask this question. Why are so many jobs NOT located in central Windsor? They used to be at one time with manufacturing off of McDougall. Yes, I know that Windsor has grownleaps and bounds by then but what happened to our downtown offices?
That’s right, we built office parks instead of manufacturing parks and drove those businesses outside of our downtown. We also have very high taxes and high rents in the downtown with a perception of little parking (why not build another garage). Plus to top it off we have gangs of youth running around doing whatever they want from Thursday to Saturday evenings. Who wants that in a business environment?
The above seem to be made in Windsor problems so what has Windsor done to combat it? Build more office parks! Yep! CAn’t have too many people working downtown can we?
By the way I agree with Vincent on getting rid of the hub concept for our transit system. It is a truly waste of time and money to have such routes. Grid systems do work much more efficiently but we all know Windsor won’t tackle this for fear of unions and of change.
100 percent true. The Greenwood Business Park area was never supposed to be a business park. It was supposed to be industrial. But Council received a few rezoning applications and fearing that businesses would leave Windsor (to go exactly where, who knows), they went along.
While Council was congratulating itself for ‘landing’ the Chrysler HQ downtown, the head office of Green Shield, a local national company, moved from the downtown fringe to Twin Oaks (another area that is business / industrial park hybrid). There was no attempt made by Council to find them a location downtown.
Here are some numbers I posted in another blog a few weeks ago. Based on the densities and costs, it doesn’t seem like a Heritage/Modern streetcar line in Windsor is that far fetched.
Some food for thought. Minimum residential density require for transit modes:
Dial-a-bus(Many origins to many destinations)- 6 dwelling units per acre
Dial-a-bus(Fixed destination or subscription service)- 3.5 to 5
Local bus(’minimum’ 1/2 mile route spacing, 20 buses/day)- 4
Local bus(’intermediate’ 1/2 mile spacing, 40 buses/day)- 7
Local bus(frequent’ 1/2 mile spacing, 120 buses/day)- 15
Express bus-reached on foot(5 buses during 2-hour period)- 15
Express bus-reached by car(5 to 10 buses during 2hr period)- 3
Light rail(5-minute headways during peak hour) - 9 (average density for a corridor of 25 to 200 square miles)
Rapid transit(5-minute headways)- 12 (average density for corridor 100 to 150 square miles)
Commuter rail(20 trains per day)- 1 to 2
Cost per transit technology (approximate cost per mile (Millions)):
Heavy rail- $50-$250
Commuter rail- $3-$25
Light rail- $20-$60
Modern streetcar- $10-$25
Heritage streetcar- $2-$12
Bus rapid transit- $4-$50
Express bus- $1-$2
So for the sake of argument, if you installed a streetcar system from Huron Church Road to Walker Road (~ 3.375 miles), the cost of a
Modern Streetcar line should be between $33.75 – $84.375 Million
and
Heritage streetcar between $6.75 - $40.5 Million
Does this not make much more sense than some far-fetched canal idea???
SOrry, I forgot to include installing it on Wyandotte Street (or any other street that might make more sense, although I think Wyandotte would be ideal).
No. Let’s fix the roads, sewers and watermains first. Then, let’s talk about an LRT line.
Vincent, no I’m not comparing either Hamilton or Ottawa to Windsor, I know they have much larger and growing populations. I posted what Ottawa is trying to do for the interest of others on this post. But, I believe that if we start planning soon, with a much earlier date than 2020 to start building, we will be far ahead of the game in this area. I also base my desire for LRT on our historical past as had been mention above adn what was accomplished before can be and should be done again.
4518