Election thoughts, LRT thoughts

I haven't posted here in a long while, because as the election got rolling, most of my energy went towards TriTAG, who I have been working with since 2012. Once again, we have a big LRT fight.

In the last few months, we've seen the rise of a well-funded anti-LRT crusade led by Jay Aissa. And as a result, it's the same old battles, the same old wounds reopened, and a lot more vitriol and no small amount of misinformation and unfounded arguments.

TriTAG's efforts this election were meant to be focused on the 2014 Election Candidate Survey, which has been very successful so far. That was back in the optimistic early days when we thought the election might be about tackling new issues. As time went on, it became clear that we needed to "mythbust the election" to deal directly with some of the myths being peddled by the crusaders.

On the eve of the election, I thought I would say a few words about why I got engaged with the LRT issue years ago, and why it continues to be the most important battle to win.

In 2011, we faced a choice between two very different solutions for "higher order transit". One was bus-based, and the other was rail-based. Despite the fact that LRT is more expensive, it appears to achieve its goals better: namely, shifting more people to public transit and also shifting development to focus on intensifying the core. It also provides better long term value by providing the capacity we'll need in a couple of decades.

I agreed that LRT was the better option, and that formed a large basis for my support. I also knew that to be successful, LRT alone isn't enough, but we need an entirely redesigned transit network supporting it. The fact that ION is not meant to stand alone and knowing what the central corridor would need to properly support a better bus network also made me favour it. But I also knew something else: that Light Rail would become a symbol for Waterloo Region. A symbol whose importance should not be dismissed.

We have a big problem in North America. We just don't really believe in transit. The car is king, and we can't really even conceive of how that will ever change. But time moves quickly, and as we've spent the last 60 years sprawling our cities ever outward, we need to spend the next 60 reshaping them to be viable, livable places.

Much more so than a rapid busway, light rail is a visible sign that we can alter a city's trajectory. It will be on almost every stock photo for the region, for UW, for Uptown and Downtown. It will quickly become an indelible part of our identity, and we will not tolerate anything less than success for it. Which means that LRT will open up the region to ongoing transit improvements. It will shift the attitudes of the entire population. That shift in mindset will also translate into ridership.

Whereas-- and here's the kicker-- it's unlikely that Bus Rapid Transit would be allowed to succeed.

Had we chosen BRT in 2011, I would be supporting it today. But it would face an uphill battle. The problem with BRT is its flexibility: a busway is a busway, sure... but too often, BRT systems are often watered down during the design phase. I have no doubt we'd face pressure here to cut the dedicated busway where it would be needed most. It's possible that the very definition of BRT, as a rapid bus operating on its own right of way, might even be rewritten by politicians unwilling to displace cars at all.

LRT, on the other hand, is much harder to erode. It stands a better chance of surviving to deliver on its promise.

I doubt that many of the anti-LRT crusaders are anything but just anti-transit. They'll tolerate what's there now, but if they can kill LRT while talking up BRT as "a much better option", I have no confidence they'll deliver anything like "gold standard" Bus Rapid Transit.

Helping Waterloo Region make a shift towards better mass transit is why I've been fighting so hard. We're really the first city in Ontario rolling out what transit expert Vukan Vuchic (see his Waterloo speech here) calls "medium capacity transit". LRT can bridge the gap (in terms of capacity, speed, and cost) between buses and subways, and there are half a dozen cities in Ontario that could benefit from it. But Toronto, which needs to get on building multiple LRT lines as the only affordable way to address its transit woes, has really poisoned the discussion with "Subways, subways, subways" and muddying the difference between LRT and mixed-traffic streetcars.

So it's on us. We can show the cities like London and Hamilton and Mississauga and Scarborough just how LRT can work. We can give form and value to something that some just can't imagine until they see it in action.

But first we have to finish building it.

Please vote on Monday. Vote for leaders who will make LRT a reality. A lot is riding on this train.

Transit for Cambridge: everyone's on board, almost.

Councillor Jane Mitchell recently laid out why Cambridge is where it is when it comes to transit, and why Mayor Craig's motion to area-rate Cambridge out of paying for LRT (rationalized as Cambridge isn't "getting anything out of it") displays an astonishingly selective memory on his part.

As Mitchell points out, Cambridge's transit has been pulled up by its metaphorical bootstraps since the region took it over. Before then, according to Cambridge regional councillor Brewer, it was raided for funds whenever things were tight. Since the formation of GRT as a regional transit entity, Cambridge has seen a huge service increase (more than doubled) while ridership in Cambridge has more than tripled.

It seems like Cambridge residents are interested in transit. It seems like the region is interested in bringing transit to the residents of Cambridge. But is Cambridge's own leadership interested?

Read Councillor Mitchell's post.

Good news for Bridge Street cycling

Regional Council's Planning and Works committee meets on Tuesday and on the docket, in the link below (see page 88) is the staff recommendation about cycling lanes for Bridge St. between Northfield and Lexington.

http://regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regionalGovernment/resources/PA2012-0508.pdf

But wait! sayeth you. Doesn't Bridge have cycling lanes already all the way from University to Northfield, except for that tricky little bit southbound near Lexington?

The answer, I learned last winter when signs went up about this study, is... no, what is currently there between Northfield and "34 metres north of Lexington" are paved shoulders. Parking is permitted. They just happen to look (and function) like bike lanes. I have biked it for years and I was fooled, even as I railed against the (extremely rare) parked car that I believed shouldn't be there.

Heh.  Whoops.

But we're close to correcting this aberration. What's more, it's clear that the region has listened to the responses they got to their request for comments. The majority of comments were supportive of cycling. A substantial minority were against it, and supportive of maintaining on-street parking. So staff went to study how this parking was being used. The answer? Not at all. Most of the houses along Bridge here have mammoth expanses of driveway, and it's clear that nobody likes to squeeze their vehicle into that shoulder if they don't have to.

So, parking that is hardly used, or cycling lane that sees frequent use? It's a no-brainer.

The other win for public feedback is the "34 metres" north of Lexington. Originally this was excluded from the region's study area. But, due to public feedback (including mine) that they had excluded the point in the road that is crying most for improvement, they revisited it, looked at the break and the dangerous right turn lane conflict, had a chat with the city of Waterloo and... holy of holies, they're replacing the right turn lane with a continuous cycling lane!

Cyclists will need to still pay close attention here to the usual danger of the right hook, but it's a simple and welcome improvement.

I continue to be in support of better separated cycling infrastructure, and obviously this ain't it. But I am a practical advocate, and projects like this and the proposed Lexington bike lanes, are important "low-hanging fruit" steps that can show benefit quickly and broadly and extremely cheaply.

There are some things I'd like to see still. Improved markings across the T intersections, sharrows and other steps to highlight the lanes and remind drivers that they have a duty to share this space.

By and large, this is a positive step. Kudos to the region and the city, and here's to P&W passing this on Tuesday.