LocalFeedback

From Wiki

This page contains letters to the editor that were written by local residents who question or oppose the plans for LRT. Unfortunately, due to resourcing issues this page is incomplete, and only includes a subset of relevant letters.

Letters to the Editor Against LRT

Time for a referendum on LRT expenditures and plan, by David Crow

April, 03, 2013
Waterloo Chronicle

From the ongoing public anger I have witnessed in the media since the LRT was first approved in 2009, it is glaringly obvious that Waterloo regional council has failed miserably to justify the need to spend $818 million on a transportation system which does not benefit the public at large and will become a millstone around the necks of taxpayers for decades to come.

One has to only examine the parallel experience in Edinburgh, Scotland to realize the enormity of the cost overrun for a similar LRT in a city with a comparable population. The original estimate in 2003 grew rapidly from 375 million pounds to 545 million pounds, then 770 million pounds, to a final figure of 1 billion pounds or $1.7 billion Canadian.

In 2011, massive public anger led to a full scale inquiry. The project was drastically reduced and buses now provide the primary means of transportation.

There is no denying that an LRT is widely regarded politically as a “status symbol,” but it is a status symbol we can ill afford. Almost 50 years ago, in 1967, when Ontario truly was a “place to live and a place to grow,” such innovation may have been feasible.

Today, however, the world continues to suffer from a tenacious global recession and Ontario’s provincial debt has escalated to $272 billion.

Constructing an LRT at this time would amount to fiscal suicide.

Even the Region has finally realized that this project will severely cut into its $300-million budget for overdue road repairs and maintenance.

In the final analysis, it is the taxpayer who will fund this project and it is the taxpayer who should have the final say by means of formal referendum to be placed on the municipal election ballot in 2014.

David A. Crow
Waterloo

LRT boarding numbers off base, by Dave Ramsay

March, 27, 2013
Kitchener Post

Re: LRT Project, Waterloo Region

A memo from staff to regional council (1/6/11) justifying its estimate of 56,000 LRT boardings weekdays in 2031 claims “the population used by staff is the urban population which is more representative (than the metro population) of the catchment area served by the LRT.”

It is on this claim that the estimate of boardings, and therefore the need for LRT, is based, and it is absolutely false.

The primary function of LRT systems is to bring people from the suburbs, towns and villages served by LRT into the urban area to work, shop and attend entertainments and return. To exclude all the areas which provide, by far, the bulk of the ridership from the LRT catchment area is absurd. The true catchment area is the metro area which includes all areas served by the LRT, both urban and non-urban.

As a result of this fundamental error the ridership estimates have been grossly exaggerated. The population of KW and Cambridge is expected to grow by almost 40 per cent by 2031. At present the iXpress bus service attracts 10,000 boarders weekdays, so an increase of 80 per cent to 18,000 for LRT boarding’s by 2031 is far more reasonable than the 56,000 currently projected.

In a submission to the federal government dated 15/11/05, the region’s estimate of the boardings was 31,000 by 2041. Some time after that the boarding estimate jumped from 31,000 in 30 years to 56,000 in 20 years. Why?

Council has ignored this warning before, just as it has ignored all warnings in the past and has made it clear that it will continue to do so in the future. “The train has left the station.” (“The Titanic has left the dock” is more appropriate.)

However, the provincial government might still be convinced the project should be stopped or delayed and withdraw its $300 million contribution as a waste of taxpayers’ money. Worth a try?

If the 83 per cent of the people the Ipsos Reid poll showed wanted a referendum on LRT were to let the province know (through the Hon. Glen Murray, MPP, Minister of Infrastructure and Transport) they wanted the project stopped and the reasons why, it might pay attention and act.

How to let the provincial government know? Use email, snail mail, submissions supported by signatures gathered by door-to-door and street corner canvassing, form a delegation and ask for a hearing, or phone.

The important thing is to act, and act quickly, before council can waste any more tax dollars on this foolhardy venture.

D.C. Ramsay
Waterloo

LRT will raise taxes, by John Shortreed

March 11, 2013
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: A pedestrian’s plight in car-centric Waterloo Region — Feb. 23; We need to boost road-usage fees — Feb. 23

The Saturday, Feb. 23 Record has several comments about the light rail transit system that contradict the region’s information. Who to believe?

The new provincial transport minister, Glen Murray, sees the light rail system as “a visionary tool to help expand the tax base,” but the region has said there will be a tax increase of 12.5 per cent, not a tax decrease. Also, the minister’s staff, according to documents obtained by The Record’s research, found it difficult to find any justification for the project.

Columnist Luisa D’Amato says the LRT “encourages people to ditch their cars and use transit” because it will be more convenient, but the region’s reports say that transit trips in 2013 will, like today, take twice the time as a trip by car, and the region has designed the transit stops, relative to the iXpress stops, so they are less convenient for the three malls, the two downtowns, Lakeshore Village, Wilfrid Laurier University, and the Technology Park.

Moreover, the light rail streetcars being ordered by the region will, at capacity, have two-thirds standing versus half standing for the existing iXpress buses.

Letter writer Michael Frind “sees annual subsidy amounting to thousands of dollars for each car in daily use,” while the region’s plan for spending about $5 billion on transportation over the next 20 years is to spend more on the transit system used now by five per cent of the people than on the road system used by 90 per cent.

It seems like road users will be subsidizing transit, the system Frind would have us switch to.

I believe the region: that the light rail system will raise taxes, be less comfortable and convenient than iXpress, and that road users will increase their subsidy to transit.

I am not so sure I believe the region’s forecasts that people in Waterloo by 2031 will use transit more per person than in Vancouver (15 per cent versus 14 per cent) and that by 2031, families will prefer to live in downtown apartments than in less expensive suburban townhouses with backyards, so we need less new land for housing. There, I believe the Ontario Municipal Board.

John Shortreed
Waterloo

LRT will bankrupt us, by Rob Stephens

February 22, 2013
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: LRT will be family-friendly, accessible — Feb. 15

The writer of this letter stated that she and her family lived in Italy and used the public transit to get her and her family from point A to point B.

Italy is bankrupt, just like Waterloo Region will be after building the light rail transit system.

The true costs of the project will be made clear as the project progresses. Already we are finding out the cost of borrowing the $265 million will cost us $227 million (that is higher interest than the RIM Park fiasco). so we are over budget before we start.

This project’s costs will escalate to the point of bankruptcy sooner than later. Weber Street will cost us another $50 million-plus, which should be part of the LRT costs only due to the fact is that if we didn’t build the LRT we wouldn’t have to rebuild Weber Street.

Once it is built, the costs will just keep rising and the ridership will not, while draining money from other services (they have already started redirecting money from essential services).

Rob Stephens
Kitchener

LRT a money pit, by Charles Burkholder

February 22, 2013
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

There has been much discussion lately regarding Waterloo Region’s coming light rail transit system.

The following information is taken from the 2008 National Geographic World Atlas will show one and all why LRT systems are financially viable in more densely populated countries and cities.

Ontario: area 1,760,395 sq. km; population 12,238,300.

Germany, France, Great Britain, Japan and Italy: area 1,457,085 sq. km; population 384,665,000.

It should also be noted that the population of Tokyo alone is 35,327,000 — virtually the same as all of Canada.

The city of Rome has a population of 2,628,000 people paying for its system.

I personally feel that the 750,000 people (the projected growth over the next 15 or 20 years of Waterloo Region) means this system will wind up being a convenience for the few at the expense of the many. To that end, I propose that we call this proposed system the Money Pit.

Charles Burkholder
Kitchener

Reopen discussion, by Peter Tschoepe

February 15, 2013
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Residents of Waterloo Region, myself included, are normally not quickly inclined to express their opinions through submissions to The Record.

It usually takes a critical issue to arouse enough interest to get people to make their views known. The light rail transit system certainly falls into that category.

The sheer volume of submissions from letter writers to date expressing outrage, anger and frustration indicates the opposition to this project.

This project is wrong all around. it was not executed through a democratic process. Waterloo regional council rejected a call for a referendum. Costs will most likely pass the $1-billion mark; taxes will definitely go up; money for crumbling roads and related infrastructure, fire, police and social services will be cut, and these are the essentials.

We need to improve our transportation system, one that serves the majority of our community. We don’t need the LRT.

Is there anyone who has the courage, stamina, energy and organizational talent to start a process to reopen the discussion on this issue to allow the residents of Waterloo Region to determine the fate of LRT?

Peter Tschoepe
Waterloo

A feeling of betrayal, by Tammi Eggen

February 15, 2013
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: Rail transit was never up to the public — Feb. 9

I want to thank Jeff Outhit for this column. I believe, as he does, that rail transit was a done deal right from the beginning.

It has been a huge frustration to me to watch this whole plan (plot) unfold. The meetings for public input were, I think, a sham. The powers that be only wanted your input if you agreed with their “vision.”

At the last municipal election, I had two criteria for a candidate to get my vote. One was they were against more roundabouts, another lost cause, and more importantly they had to say they were against light rail transit. I was pleased when so many candidates who said this were voted in. I was angry, and felt betrayed when they almost all went back on their word once elected.

There is no doubt we need better transit in this region, but rail transit is not going to accomplish this. Those of us in the suburbs will still have the same, crappy service we have now. As Outhit said, nothing can be done about it now.

Tammi Eggen
Kitchener

===Shiny, trendy thingy, by Charles Crockford---

February 15, 2013
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

While I realize the construction of our light rail transit system (a.k.a. God’s Gift to Transportation) will enable me to achieve my lifelong dream of being able to ride a shiny, trendy thingy from one shopping centre to another, I would like to poke some holes in some of the arguments that have been put forth in favour of the aforementioned abomination.

The argument has been made that in order to attract students to our institutes of higher learning, an LRT system is an absolute must. I have had 11 years of university training, and in those 11 years a consideration of the means of transportation to a university was so far down the list of what I considered when choosing one it wasn’t even on it.

Furthermore, having taught high school in a previous life, I cannot imagine a guidance counsellor telling a student to go to a certain university because it was served by a shiny, trendy thingy.

It has also been suggested that we will not attract the brightest minds to our area if these people are forced to ride on buses rather than LRT cars. In other words, these bright minds would take a job they did not want, and which paid less, just so they could ride a shiny, trendy thingy to work. Yeah, right.

I am well aware the young trendies who foolishly favour our upcoming folly will suggest I should get with it and join the 21st century; to them I would reply, “Get real.”

Charles Crockford
Waterloo

LRT stands for ‘Let’s Raise Taxes’, by Brian Sklar

April 18, 2012
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: Light Rail Transit

The general trend of the letters for those supporting the Let’s Raise Taxes (LRT) project is that this is going to gain us increased recognition in the world and further our reputation as the world’s most intelligent city.

What are these people smoking? Since when is it a sign of intelligence to commit what will likely be well over one billion tax dollars to construct a very limited transit system (not to mention the millions of dollars it will take to maintain and keep the system upgraded on an ongoing basis)? It will provide transportation to less than five per cent of the population while providing no benefit whatsoever to the remaining 95 per cent. Add the fact that most of the region’s outlying communities (New Hamburg, New Dundee, Baden, etc.) are without any Grand River Transit service at all and it just further compounds the stupidity of the Let’s Raise Taxes project. Why not provide bus service to all those other communities, rather than commit huge tax dollars to provide an unneeded upgrade to a bus service that is already there?

Further, even the most optimistic supporters of the Let’s Raise Taxes project realize that it will never pay for itself — it will always be operating at a loss and the losses will even be greater than the present system because of the higher maintenance and upgrading costs associated with the system.

To me, it just doesn’t add up.

Brian Sklar
Waterloo

Values will drop, by John Shortreed

November 21, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: The right route for light rail - Nov. 10

In regard to the Waterloo Region Record's editorial on the revised light-rail plan for Waterloo, it was said the value of houses on Caroline Street will rise because of the light rail system.

This is nonsense and wrong headed. Ask any realtor the impact on property values if adding a train track with a 200-foot train every seven-and-a-half minutes, from 5:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m., 35 feet from their living room and bedroom, with a 90-degree turn with 16 steel wheels on steel rails that screech when the automatic oilers fail to function and their street is dead-ended and their visitor parking is cut in half. The answer is obvious. Their property values will go down as their quality of life is reduced by the intrusion.

The Record could have consulted the studies that show both the increase in property values at bus or rail rapid transit stations, but also show the decrease in property values for properties adjacent to the tracks between stations. While the region and The Record like to believe that property values will increase at nearby stations, they ignore the findings by the same studies that properties along the tracks, not at stations, will see a decline in property values.

The whole "consultation" on the light rail route in Waterloo was a sham. The information from the 120 people that attended Knox Church in good faith would be surprised to know that after their input was summarized in 10 pages of comments, it had no further part in the route selection. Their opinions were not even used in the selection of the route. This is absolutely clear to anyone who actually read the region's uptown light rail route report. The consultation results were not used.

John Shortreed
Waterloo

Forced upon us, by Ellen Shields

June 17, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Over the past six months, urban ransit has been a very divisive issue in Waterloo Region.

Unfortunately, regional council has not handled the situation well. Over several years, regional council came up with a transit plan, light rail transit, and seemed to assume that if they but explained the plan, the public would embrace it. That’s not how things developed. Some people became strong supporters, but many others became strong opponents, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that council acted as though light rail transit or rapid buses were the only viable options.

When the people who had serious reservations about council’s favoured plan called for a referendum on the light rail transit proposal, its supporters were strongly opposed. For some reason, the thought that such an important issue, one that council members themselves have said is the most important issue ever to face regional council, should be decided by the voters seemed to terrify the pro-light rail party.

We were told that a referendum would be a dreadful mistake because the majority of voters were uninformed or misinformed and, in addition, the whole proposal was too complex for most voters to understand. Instead, we should rely on the wisdom of our elected councillors.

Listening to these descriptions of the average voter, I could only wonder who had elected these wise councillors. Regional council feels that it has consulted with the public at large, but it hasn’t. We all know that the “consultation” was a mere formality. The only real threat was that of a referendum, and council quickly took care of that threat.

If there had been a referendum and if the voters had voted in favour of light rail, I would have happily accepted the results. The voters would have voted to transform their region in a certain way. Without a referendum, however, I feel that a transformation has been imposed on us by a small group of nine people, three of whom were elected by constituents who do not live in the cities that will be directly affected by light rail, and who will not be forced to pay for it.

Ellen Shields
Waterloo

Taxes will rise, by John McAllister

June 17, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

In the pirited debate regarding the light rail proposal, one aspect that did not get proper recognition was the projected tax increases. Few, if any, projects of any size that are “managed” by civic employees ever come in on budget.

Waterloo ran 65 per cent over budget on a simple skateboard park, and then had the gall to rejoice that it was below the 88 per cent over budget per the last guesstimate. Performance like that in a fixed-price, private sector contract would be grounds for rightful dismissal.

Light rail costs do not include the $30-plus million for Kitchener’s part of road preparations. This will end up in one way or another on our tax bills.

A 25 per cent overrun is a given. Just think what the region’s managers can do on a massive, complex and ill-conceived project such as this.

If we were to bump the end-costs to 50 per cent over the current budget, that would be a more likely outcome. Is light rail really worth this much taxation?

John McAllister
Kitchener

Flawed arguments, by Paul Schmidt

June 17, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

I am not sure that light rail transit will be a good long-term idea.

I am sure, however, that those faithful believers who have urged it upon us as if it were a twin-railed transport to the Promised Land, do so with some seriously flawed arguments.

I have read letters likening it to the Conestoga Parkway or the Centre in the Square — and we are told to see how great these projects were, once we learned to accept them.

We didn’t want to pay for the parkway, but we all had cars, so if we were going to have to pay we might as well use it. With light rail just the opposite will happen. We will be forced to pay for it but, since we all still have cars, we will not use it any time soon.

Before the Centre in the Square was built, we didn’t have a referendum, but rather a survey was taken. It showed that a majority of citizens opposed the project — but if it had to be built it should at least include a tourist centre/hotel to help pay for itself. We had the centre shoved down our throats, but without the hotel complex attached, and the thing still costs us about $1.3 million a year in operating costs to keep.

Paul H. Smith
Kitchener

Don’t cut through Waterloo Park, by Heidy Schmidt

Jun 14, 2011
Waterloo Chronicle

I have never been in favour of LRT.

My biggest concerns are emergencies and the limited flexibility these trains offer.

I am also concerned about the costs of technological up-grades.

Like personal computers, they constantly need upgrading.

The taxes that are being proposed will never end. Please stop treating us like uneducated, uninformed citizens.

Mayor Halloran understands the importance of this decision with her motion for a referendum. That it was defeated, tells me that regional councillors are afraid that the majority of the people would vote against LRT.

That means seven of these councillors including Waterloo’s representatives, Couns. Sean Strickland and Jane Mitchell, are in favour of disrupting the downtown economy, increasing taxes on citizens that will have no benefits from this system and without knowing the bottom line.

I have been taking the buses for a year now and the service is excellent.

It only takes an hour, using one bus, to go from my house to Conestoga Mall then off to Fairview.

By car and taking the Expressway, it takes no time at all.

If anything, the GRT should have smaller buses during low ridership.

Going through the park as Sean Strickland is suggesting is asinine.

If people want to get from point A to point B, they don’t want to go through the park.

Leave our parks alone.

Heidy Schmidt
Waterloo

Taxpayers being denied their say, by David Crow

Jun 14, 2011
Waterloo Chronicle

As a longtime resident of both Kitchener and Waterloo, I view the $818 million LRT proposal with a great deal of concern.

From the many articles I have read, it is clear the majority of people in Waterloo do not support the costly and disruptive undertaking.

Mayor Brenda Halloran deserves great credit for trying to convince Waterloo Regional Council that a public referendum should be allowed.

The fact that her motion was defeated by a vote of 7-3 reveals the same elitist attitude which prevailed when the proponents of amalgamation were similarly opposed to any public input into the final decision.

It is interesting to note that Switzerland, one of the most advanced countries in the world, has used public referendum for over 200 years as an integral part of its system of governments.

It is called “participatory democracy” and we would do well to emulate this system in Ontario.

Ultimately, it is the taxpayers who will pay for the LRT and it is the taxpayers who are being denied any say in the final decision.

This is totally unacceptable.

David A. Crow
Waterloo

Make it accessible, by John Petersen

June 14, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Waterloo regional council has its priorities reversed. A grid system of transit lines should be laid out in such a way that any home would be less than 10 minutes walk from nearest transit stop, with less than 10 minutes waiting time, and at the other end, less than a 10-minute walk to the final destination.

When this system is up and running, and everyone can get to a rapid transit stop without their cars, then it is time to discuss what kind of rapid transit system to build.

John Petersen
Kitchener

Doesn’t work for me, by D. Susan Bailey

June 14, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Our family has followed the debate over light rail transit with great interest and trepidation. We feel this will be a bottomless pit of cost, with no discernible benefit to us.

I have no problem in exploring alternate methods of travel. However, the route described, joining two malls through downtown Waterloo and Kitchener makes no sense.

I live in Forest Heights and work near the expressway and Courtland Avenue, and I need to travel to outside meetings as well. I take my bicycle whenever possible, but it isn’t always. If I drive to work, it takes eight minutes. If I got on a city bus to take me to King Street in Kitchener to catch the light rail train, and then have to walk several blocks to get to work, I will have to spend much, much more time getting to work. The same goes for travelling to Fairview Park mall. I can drive there in 11 minutes.

So I will end up paying for the light rail transit, without any benefit to me.

It seems to me that part of this planned route is meant to once again “revitalize” the downtowns of this community. We need to stop doing CPR on downtown areas and treat them just as we do any other area in the cities — as discrete neighbourhoods which will develop their own personalities and sustainability. And let’s not forget that we already have iXpress buses travelling much the same route already.

I challenge those who are crying, “We must do it right this minute!” to get back to the drawing board with a solid plan to help me replace my car with a transit pass that gets me wherever I need to go in a timely fashion. As it stands, even if I use light rail, I still have to pay my car insurance and other related costs. So there’s not much attractive in this proposal for those who will be stuck paying for it.

D. Susan Bailey
Kitchener

We need opposition, by Eileen Zarnke

June 14, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

When Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran became a new member of regional council she probably went along with the plans for light rail. When the pros and cons regarding light rail became the hot topic of the electorate she reconsidered her initial inclination and suggested a referendum. She has been criticized for changing her mind. If councillors are not allowed to change their minds they are being bullied. A leader is not necessarily a “yes” man or woman. It takes guts to be a leader who says “no.” Governments need “leaders in opposition.” They are like the reins on a horse that prevent it from running uncontrolled.

I am a low-income senior citizen and I can no longer use any kind of public transportation. But that does not mean that I don’t have to help pay for it. And there are more people, young and old, who are in the same situation. We need a Robin Hood. Things haven’t changed much since that mythical time.

Eileen Zarnke
Waterloo

I want a referendum, by Wanda Hoffman

June 14, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

As the largest expenditure in history for the region, I should have a say as to whether or not I want light rail transit. Everyone should have a say.

One has to wonder why the referendum was voted down. Why am I, a taxpayer, having this expensive proposition shoved down my throat? Why is this being pushed through like this? What is it the region is afraid of?

Certainly, we have elected councillors, but that does not give them carte blanche to spend this amount of money without a taxpayers’ vote. This is a big decision. As the disaster at RIM Park showed, it can become an extremely costly venture. I strongly resent regional council spending taxpayer dollars (that we don’t even have yet) without our input on a referendum.

They didn’t want to put fluoride to the vote either, and surprise, look what happened.

I urge all councillors to think carefully — because it may be your last term if you push this through. I predict budgets way out of control on this project. It will probably be the biggest embarrassment of the decade.

Wanda Hoffman
Waterloo

Buses are just fine, by Ingrid Fohry

June 14, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

I have never been in favour of light rail transit. My biggest concerns are emergencies, limited flexibility, the costs of technological upgrades, and the route. The taxes that are being proposed will never end. Please stop treating us like uneducated, uninformed citizens.

To lead Waterloo Region takes more than just being elected. Recognizing conflicts of interest at the 11th-hour reflects poorly on the officials. The public’s outcry identifies the problems with how some council members are trying to promote such a defective proposal. As leaders they have failed considerably.

Downtown Kitchener has been serviced by buses for over 50 years. There is ample parking, residential developments and businesses. The millions of dollars spent for infrastructural changes have not been able to revitalize the core, considering stores are still closing. Light rail will not bring customers and new businesses to the downtown core, when it will provide a 39 minute ride from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park mall

I have been taking the buses for a year now, and the service is excellent. If anything, have smaller buses during low ridership.

Ingrid Fohry
Waterloo

Gridlock will continue, by Jack Connell

June 14, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

There is nothing in the proposals for light rail transit that changes the traffic gridlock that occurs on a daily basis on other roads and streets. With the light rail system there is no flexibility to change routes quickly.

With the light rail system controlling the traffic lights on the cross streets, I fear emergency vehicles will no longer be able to clear vehicle traffic ahead of them because the street cars have control over the cross street traffic lights.

If light rail is such a lucrative enterprise then let’s let private enterprise bring forward some proposals as to costs and construction scheduling.

Jack Connell
Cambridge

Madcap scheme, by Nancy Chadwick

June 14, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: Build light rail in this region — June 11

This editorial, like all other projections on the light rail transit option, was full of obfuscation, assumptions, futuristic fantasy and unproven assertions.

Shame on The Record for not seeing this plan for the madcap scheme that it is.

In future, I suggest that Waterloo regional planners take note of mothers.

I think the planners should be aware that many women running errands for their families would have trouble using the light rail system to do this.

If the planners want to change society, they could start here, and not spend any more of our money on meaningless “consultations.”

Nancy Chadwick
Waterloo

Late in the game, by Frank Mader

June 11, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: No accountability — June 3

Regarding the transit debate, the process used in choosing a system seems strangely flawed. The strongest proponents, those who knew the planned route from the earliest stages possible, have had to recuse themselves from the vote because of conflicts of interest. But this comes only very late in the game after having used the considerable resources of their bully pulpits to tout the great need for this questionable project.

In his June 3 letter to the editor, Peter Woolstencroft was critical of the fact that three of the region’s township mayors, whose constituents will pay not a dime toward the project, have votes in the decision.

It is no wonder that the proponents of a light rail transit system do not want a referendum.

Frank Mader
Kitchener

Questionable route, by Al Hecht

June 11, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Having taught urban geography for some 30-plus years at a local university, I find the location of the light rail proposal very, very puzzling.

Public transport modes of all kind need to go from where people live to were they work or do business. Where light rail has been successful, as in Calgary, it brings people from the suburbs to the city’s central business district in the morning and back in the evening. In our case, unless it has changed, it is to go from Waterloo’s Conestoga shopping centre to Waterloo’s urban core and on to Kitchener’s central business district and on to another shopping centre, the Fairview Park mall. It misses the rider demand origin: the suburbs.

Location is everything in cities. Unless this is being kept in mind in its construction, light rail will fail in the Kitchener-Waterloo area.

Al Hecht
Waterloo

Less disruptive route, by Ron Hackett

June 10, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: On with the transit vote — June 2

There is a 12th option for light rail transit that has never been presented to the public. It addresses most of the valid and interesting arguments of opponents regarding the colossal waste of money, needless disruption and added congestion to the downtowns of Kitchener and Waterloo by putting trains on already narrow roads.

Utilizing upgraded rail corridors from the farmers’ market in Woolwich Township down to the Delta in Cambridge would take riders into the core areas of Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge. Individual express busses dispatched to each individual stop could eliminate the need to rip up 2.5 kilometres of road in Waterloo and 3.5 kilometres of road in Kitchener for only five stops. High speed trains could operate in the rail corridors augmented by an effective feeder bus system at half the cost and much less disruption to traffic, streets and neighbourhoods.

Ron Hackett
Wallenstein

A traffic impediment, by Andre Mongeon

June 10, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Projects such as the proposed light rail transit line never come in on budget. Contributions by the other levels of government are fixed, but any overruns will be our responsibility. Expect this project to cost more, a lot more. It will be brought to you by the same kind of people who brought you another white elephant, the Kitchener farmers’ market.

In exchange for this huge and ongoing expenditure, the main benefit of light rail transit will be giving perhaps a few thousand people a couple of extra minutes to comb their hair and brush their teeth.

The people who continue to drive will be encumbered by a trolley. Anyone who has driven in central Toronto can attest to how a trolley can impede traffic.

Just how rapid can it be on a city street where it will have to obey the same speed limits as any other vehicle? It can’t go 80 km/h down King Street, and it has to stop frequently anyway, just like a bus.

Andre Mongeon
Kitchener

We want our say, by Beth McCosh

June 10, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

We, the taxpayers, have been denied our vote on the proposed light rail transit by regional council.

Four regional councillors, including our regional chairman, have declared themselves to be in a conflict of interest; three regional councillors represent regional residents who will not have their taxes increased (and they should not be voting); and one regional councillor may not be voting due to an unfortunate accident — so in theory that leaves eight regional councillors to decide on constructing a this billion dollar folly trolley. Don’t we, the taxpayers of this great Region of Waterloo, deserve better?

Beth McCosh
Waterloo

Questionable reasoning, by Ron Ward

June 10, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

As I understand the light rail transit situation, we are about to be committed to a massive long-term debt to finance the very optimistic cost, user and population growth estimates for a system that saves little or no commuting time, offers no other incentive to reduce car traffic, takes lanes from existing traffic, disrupts public access and appeal of city cores and can never be adjusted for inevitable traffic pattern changes.

Ironically, its very convenience encourages suburban growth. Tragically, it adds major taxes to already hurting fixed and lower income residents.

Incredibly, council must also be ignoring the clear signs of imminent U.S. economic collapse and dramatically increased credit costs ahead. The very real threats to Toyota and RIM or the jobs that an ever stronger Canadian dollar takes mustn’t concern them either.

Apparently nothing is more important than serving a delusion that the light rail transit will attract hi-tech residents and be more convenient for our temporary residents who pay little or no taxes before they leave the bill to all those who don’t want or need it. The only benefit seems to be a one time gift horse of our own money from our other taxers in return for generations of risk and debt.

Nothing else makes sense to most of us and every council member got elected knowing that. Unless they convince us otherwise in the next few days, they are politically dead.

Ron Ward
Waterloo

Opt out of LRT as solution to growth, by Dick Tyssen

Jun 08, 2011
Waterloo Chronicle

I’m not against rapid transit, nor am I against LRT — for other communities.

What I am against is LRT for Waterloo Region.

Number one, it’s far from cutting- edge technology, in fact it might well be completely obsolete before construction is complete.

Number two, its route will completely destroy the ambiance of Uptown Waterloo and Waterloo Park.

But, my real concern is that a vastly reduced number of regional politicians have before them a plan to vote on one and one only ill thought- out and flawed proposal, that is to spend taxpayers’ dollars on a potential white elephant, one which will most surely rival the Rim Park fiasco.

Regional council, in its reduced form, is intent on showing us what true leadership means.

I challenge Waterloo council to protect its citizens and its landscape and to opt out of participation in this one and only solution to a perceived increase in population.

T.G. (Dick) Tyssen
Waterloo

Hard to make work, by Paul Zacharias

June 8, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

There must be about 40 streets intersecting King Street between the two malls. I’m assuming there will be safety guard rails on both sides of these 40 intersections which will be activated when the trains go by every eight to 10 minutes. If there is a station at King and Victoria strteets, or King and Queen streets, with passengers getting on and off, I can picture the traffic backing up during rush hours.

And what happens emergency vehicles are caught up in the jam?

My sense is that the projected light rail transit ridership is somewhat inflated. Where are all these new passengers coming from? Certainly, people living within a few blocks of the rails will find it convenient, but not the people living in Kitchener’s outlying areas.

Some proponents of light rail cite Portland, Oregon, as a good example. I lived in Portland for five years and in several significant ways our two cities are quite different.

Many financial experts say most of Europe and North America are on the verge of a second-dip recession, which could be at least as deep as and probably longer than the first dip. How would that affect the funding of the LRT project?

I agree, mainly for health reasons, that a bus rapid transit system isn’t an ideal solution either. Sometimes we have to choose between two not very good choices, and in this case I would vote for the bus system. Looking at the larger picture, things like more bike lanes, encouraging carpooling, and especially adopting a simpler life style would certainly improve the overall situation.

Paul Zacharias
Kitchener

Unfair to Cambridge, by Brad McEwen

June 7, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

The debate goes on and on, but I, for one, agree with the suggestion that a visionary public transportation system is going to become a necessity in this region.

What I most vehemently disagree with is that the people of Cambridge will have to help pay for the light rail system and we will get nothing for our money!

The second largest city in this region will get rapid buses. Well, we already have rapid buses. If anyone has ever been a passenger on one of these buses during rush hour from Fairview Park mall, they will know that, without dedicated lanes, these buses will still get snarled up in traffic jams.

Regional council will undoubtedly vote to proceed with the proposal that they have favoured all along, making the public consultations all a show. Cambridge will get mistreated once again, as so often happens with this level of government.

It’s time that Cambridge city council withheld its regional taxes to protest. It’s time once again to consider becoming a separate municipality entirely.

Brad McEwen
Cambridge

Only for show, by Robert Adams

June 7, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

I can’t believe that the politicians in this area are so pompous that even in the face of Ipsos Reid poll indicating 80 per cent in favour of a referendum on the light rail transit system, that they have said they are the elected officials and therefore will decide. They are there to work for the wishes of their constituents and as such should be held accountable.

I believe that everyone of them who has voted against a referendum should lose his or her seat in office. I already sense the same done deal as the women’s prison happening. Yes they held public meetings, but only for show.

Robert Adams
Kitchener

Undetermined costs, by Peter Pople Sr.

June 4, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

It’s difficult to do a cost-benefit analysis of the light rail project because the regional taxpayers will pay only a small part of the initial cost, while the provincial and federal governments will be picking up the rest. Locally, we will have higher taxes, traffic congestion, cost overruns, construction delays, and then the unforeseen operational costs.

If we had not neglected our road system for 25 years, would we even be considering light rail?

This project might be called “the mall connection,” but few will want to lug home groceries and Christmas packages on the bus-train combo. If built, it will be added to the questionable benefits of our so called “international airport.”

The recent municipal election was a farce with no viable alternatives to some senior sitting candidates. No wonder 69 per cent of voters refused to participate, as was their right, so nobody in government should claim to have a mandate from the people.

I do not believe this is an effective use of taxpayer money, but I’m sure nobody wants to return the cash to our heavily indebted senior governments. So sit back and enjoy the unintended consequences of this highly questionable project if it proceeds.

Peter Pople Sr.
Kitchener

Consider trams, by Tad Pecak

June 4, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: Regional councillors vote against taking transit decision to public ballot — June 2

So, there will be no referendum. It must be admitted though, that questions in a referendum could also be manipulated by vested interests. I do believe, however, that councillors should remember who put them there. In major projects such as this, they should consult their constituents and have enough guts to express majority view.

However, since for various reasons we are heading for some improved transit, the councillors should seriously consider trams. Trams are electrically run buses with overhead power lines. They have been successfully used elsewhere. There would be no concern about gasoline cost, pollution (noise or fumes) and no need to disrupt and inconvenience the public with messy construction.

As well, the time of construction and costs to us taxpayers should be nowhere near as high. Another advantage is that they can easily be branched off into subdivisions from some focal centres.

Tad Pecak
Kitchener

Make transit convenient, by Tammi Eggen

June 4, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

The main reason people do not use public transit is that it is not convenient.

We live in Forest Heights and have a daughter who attends Conestoga College at Doon. In order to get to her class on time she must be at the bus stop one hour and 15 minutes before class time. If I drive her it takes 20 minutes, which can include a trip through the drive-thru for coffee.

If my daughters want to go to Fairview Park mall it takes 30 minutes by transit, or 10 minutes by car. If they want to go to Conestoga Mall it takes 45 minutes on a good day by bus, and 15 or 20 minutes by car.

My question to the councillors making the decision about light rail transit is this: Will going ahead with light rail change that?

I wonder how many councillors actually use transit on a regular basis, and how many plan on using it if and when the light rail transit system is built?

Just because we build it that doesn’t mean people will use it, if it’s not convenient.

Tammi Eggen
Kitchener

An outdated system, by Robert Milne

June 3, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

I think calling a 19th-century transportation system “light rail” instead of what it is — a street car system — is preposterous. This system was scrapped years ago, and deservedly so, because it is so outdated. Why the enthusiasm to waste a lot of money on a system that is old, passé and out of date?

In short, I think the promoters of the street cars (read “light rail”) are nuts.

Robert Milne
Kitchener

Councillors should listen to constituents, by Lloyd Mundy

May 31, 2011
Waterloo Chronicle

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we the taxpayers had a council that would represent us?

We recently spent time in London, a city with a population that exceeds Kitchener and Waterloo’s combined.

They do not have a Conestoga Parkway. They are not embracing a rapid transit system.

If council makes another major blunder and substantially increases our taxes, they should not worry about future expansion in that residential buyers would avoid this area with a passion, owning to residential taxes.

Lloyd Mundy
Waterloo

Improve other transit before laying tracks, by M. Carl Kaufman

May 31, 2011
Waterloo Chronicle

I am opposed to light rail trainst, but not to improved transportation.

The cost of LRT is unreasonable.

It will cost a lot more than the current estimate. That is not fair to the taxpayers, who are overburdened already.

Regional government must be fiscally responsible. It was elected to represent the people and to protect them against the designs of the bureaucrats. To build LRT, the whole downtown of Kitchener and Waterloo, Waterloo Park and the university campus will have to be chopped up.

Let’s start by adding a few more bus routes and some smaller buses.

If the tracks are really necessary, they can be laid the next time Kitchener tears up King Street!

E-mail your councillors. Their email addresses can be found on Region of Waterloo’s website. Some of them just might hope to be reelected.

M. Carl Kaufman
Waterloo

We’re overtaxed, by Thomas Thompson

May 31, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: Transit referendum pitched — May 19

We have been taxed to death since Carl Zehr became Kitchener’s mayor.

It is unfortunate he has had a free ride for so long with no competition for that position. It is now to the point that he says he was appointed to do as he wishes in regard to light rail transit, and that is approve it without taxpayers input. We are taxed beyond what we as seniors and other homeowners can now afford, but he seems to think there is a bottomless pit of money in our pockets.

I do hope the reps from Waterloo and Cambridge force a referendum so that we the taxpayers can be heard. Why go back to what was removed 50 years ago?

Thomas Thompson
Kitchener

It could get costly, by Bill Gibson

May 27, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

I am concerned about the proposed light rail transit project, budgeted for around $ 800 million. Unfortunately, we see many budget overruns, in particular with government projects. If we allow for an increase in the budget of, say, only 30 per cent over the lifetime of the project this takes the new cost to $1.04 billion.

Of this new cost, the portion from the federal and provincial governments would still be the same, around $565 million, leaving the region to come up with a balance of $475 million, almost twice the current estimate — certainly more than I am willing to pay.

I think this is definitely a case where a plebiscite or referendum should be considered.

Bill Gibson
Waterloo

She speaks for us, by Alex Serwaczek

May 26, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: Transit referendum pitched — May 19

Ever since Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig withdrew from the light rail transit debate, the majority of local residents who oppose light rail have had no one on Waterloo regional council standing up for their interests — until Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran stood up last week and called for a referendum.

It has been clear for some time that light rail is being propelled by powerful interests and regional minions whose skins are not on the line. The region’s ridership estimates are so high they’re a joke, but if they are proven wrong then not only would we have far higher operating costs for light rail than predicted, but we would also still need all the road expansion that the region claims to be trying to avoid. There is a lot more at stake here than is pointed out in a Record editorial espousing regional councillors to do their job in the absence of a referendum.

A referendum would give a chance to have a real public debate — not shoddy “public forums” aimed at hoodwinking us. This decision is too big to make in the current climate. Three cheers and a nod to Halloran for taking a stance and doing her job correctly.

Alex Serwaczek
Kitchener

Let the citizens be heard on transit, by Rosemary Pell

May 26, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: Transit referendum pitched — May 19

Interesting: a suggestion that might truly allow citizen voices to be heard.

From my experience at the open forums and other input mechanisms over the past few years, citizen voices do not seem to make an impact if they are not supportive of light rail. Concerns certainly did not appear to be considered in the limited options put forward by Waterloo Region staff. Mayor Carl Zehr and The Record oppose the referendum idea, saying it is up to politicians elected last October to decide and, as a representative democracy these politicians are charged with making a decision.

Unfortunately, due to conflicts of interest on financial matters related to the transit route, four of the 16 representatives cannot vote on this issue.

I wonder why they did not declare their conflict during the last term of council or, at the very least, before the election. That information may have led to a very different elected council. This means only 12 of those elected can vote, and only nine who are voting represent the three communities that will pay for and be directly affected by the transit decision. As this is such a crucial decision on many levels, perhaps a different mechanism such as a referendum is needed to guide the decision-makers, despite the complexity of that process.

Rosemary Pell
Kitchener

LRT debate has been biased and botched, by Scott J. Abrams

May 17, 2011
Waterloo Chronicle

Is it too much of a bother for our leaders to show some leadership?

It is difficult to relay the level of frustration I feel as a taxpayer as I watch our community make another huge financial mistake. I won’t even get into the RIM park fiasco.

Suffice it to say I was right to oppose that project just as I am right to oppose this LRT project.

Our community has faced soaring tax rates on our already inflated property values. We can ill afford another huge bump to satisfy the pie-in-the-sky dreamers at regional council. There are a vast majority of residents who have not been heard on this issue.

I have watched as councillors who lobbied for this project suddenly declare conflict of interest at the 11th hour and I am disgusted. I have watched as every other reasonable option has been discounted and shot down with no logical explanation. I have watched as the numbers themselves have changed leaving most of us bewildered as to the actual cost of building and then maintaining this white elephant. I have yet to see any open public debate on this issue whatsoever.

The region offered information sessions with no real information except that they are building a train no matter what anyone says. This arrogance must stop if there is to be genuine dialogue.

Some councillors have even suggested that anyone who is anti-LRT is not informed. I suggest that taxpayers are perhaps better informed as to how much money is available in our pockets. I believe that careful reflection on the state of the economy and the many recent jumps in the mill rate and the vast variety of local infrastructure needs would make any reasonable person doubt the viability of this project proceeding at this time.

The dialogue itself needs to be clarified before any meaningful debate can take place.

Sometimes proponents point to the project as a way to address a transit need. Buses have clearly been identified as a financially superior way to meet these needs. The argument then shifts to core intensification. Spending a billion dollars on a train to increase core intensity is like giving a patient open-heart surgery when all he needs is an aspirin. Core intensification is better achieved through zoning and financial development incentives.

The tax increases themselves may be enough to drive out development to Ken Seiling’s hometown of Elmira and other parts of the region where the tax rate won’t be impacted by the LRT.

The people arguing for LRT have done a very poor job of it and they come across as rude in their demands of my money.

The recent debacle regarding the mayor and the leaders of the two opposing LRT groups has left me disgusted with the lack of leadership being shown by our local politicians.

They need to get off the fence, pick a side and open some debate.

A project of this magnitude that has so much controversy surrounding it demands a referendum. If that’s not too much of a bother.

Scott J. Abrams
Waterloo

Good for Halloran, by Edith Blanchette

May 26, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Good for Mayor Brenda Halloran asking for a referendum. She is asking for what many many taxpayers want in Waterloo Region — yes or no to trains or buses. To say that councillors were elected because they were going to vote for light rail transit or not is wrong, as many have excused themselves from the vote as conflict of interest.

The only vote that should count on this should be the vote on a referendum.

To say much public input has been put into this questions is wrong.

Why should taxpayers in three cities pay for a train that realtors hope will lure people, and maybe business, downtown Kitchener?

How many people are going to give up their autos for the inconvenience of hopping on buses and trains to do their shopping? We cannot afford the unproven costs and the upkeep of the light rail system. There are not enough people to support the costs predicted now.

The provincial and federal governments have huge deficits now. We need hospitals and health care more than light rail transit

Edith Blanchette
Cambridge

Referendum is the right call, by Ruth Haworth

May 26, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: Transit referendum pitched — May 19

My respect for Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran soared through the roof when I read that she is calling for a referendum on light rail transit.

In light rail transit, our region is facing the biggest decision in its history. Waterloo regional staff have provided a great deal of information about their proposal, but I feel much of the information is slanted, misleading, and possibly downright inaccurate.

Local taxpayers have grave concerns about the cost of the light rail transit, the disruption to traffic, and the changes to our cores. We are worried not just about rising taxes but also about strapped budgets that will lead to cutbacks in other programs for decades to come. We are concerned that light rail transit will result in worse transit for our region because too much money will be spent on one route, leading to cutbacks elsewhere.

We need to have an honest, open public dialogue about the light rail proposal, followed by a referendum. Thank you, Mayor Halloran, for taking leadership on this important issue.

Ruth Haworth
Waterloo

Just a scheme, by Ernie Reiter

May 25, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: Transit referendum pitched — May 19

It sounds like people are finally waking up to what light rail transit really is. Jeff Outhit explained it best in his column when he said: “Rail transit is an urban redevelopment scheme meant to persuade investors to build homes and workplaces near stations.”

The region wants all taxpayers to pay for a “scheme” to benefit the investors and at the same time density the city. The region has admitted that it is not really about moving people.

The region should first get the provincial government to allow those “investors” to pay for the system through lot levies, since they will reap the rewards in their land values. As well, the region should implement a real cost fare system that would apply to all operating costs.

At the moment, the region is putting the cart before the horse. It is exactly what Outhit says it is, a scheme.

Ernie Reiter
Waterloo

No way we’ll pay, by Yvette Cybulskie

May 25, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: Waterloo looks to future of its downtown — May 17

Paying for parking in central Waterloo? What kind of nonsense is that? No one wants to pay for a 10-minute stop at the drug store.

This is just a ploy by Waterloo council for light rail and public transit.

Grocery shoppers are not going to hop on any public transit vehicle if they have a large and heavy grocery order. Buses and light rail do not drop people off on their doorsteps.

Yvette Cybulskie
Waterloo

Referendum needed, by Steve Bongelli

May 21, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Re: Transit referendum pitched — May 19

Waterloo Mayor Brenda Halloran has done the right thing calling for a referendum regarding the proposed light rail transit system. The recent rash of conflict-of-interest statements from regional councilors proves we need one, but why they waited until the very last minute before the region votes is questionable at best. The plans for the train have been in place for a very long time, so one would think the conflict has been evident for some time. We, the voters, have been subject to pro-light rail information sessions, meaning do you want plan A trains or plan B trains, not do you want trains at all?

We deserve a say with a referendum, we need to have a say, and it’s the morally correct thing to do. Congratulations, Mayor Halloran for standing up and doing what’s right.

Steve Bongelli
Kitchener

More buses, please, by Sonya Knipfel

May 20, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Train costs stall bus upgrades — April 15

I have read that Grand River Transit put a halt on plans to expand bus routes throughout the region in order to start saving money for light rail transit. That says to me that our regional council has already made a decision regarding the installation of light rail transit in the region, and that it doesn’t matter what we think.

I thought I should put my two cents in, before this actually happens.

The Bridgeport/Kiwanis area of Kitchener is slated for more than 300 new homes over the next several years, yet there are no plans to expand the Grand River Transit routes into our area. The nearest bus stop in our area of the city is between one and four kilometres away from our houses. It’s a 20-minute walk to the bus stop from my house.

Here’s how I see it. I can take 20 minutes to walk to the bus stop, wait for a bus and then get to the light rail transit line. Or, alternately, get in my car and get wherever I’m going in the region in 20 minutes or less (even in the really bad traffic). Which do you think I’m going to choose?

I might have been a supporter of light rail transit if I knew we had a bus system that serviced all areas of the region, the buses were always full, and we had a demand for more service. Why should I pay for a service that has no intention of servicing my area of town?

Sonya Knipfel
Kitchener

Buses are better, by Ann Marie Bacon

May 20, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Light rail transit is hydro-dependent and travels on fixed rails on the road. I have some questions and concerns.

Trains would be unable to detour. More flexibility is needed than a light rail transit can provide during road closings or after accidents. As well, a light rail transit system would mean property tax increases for everyone living in Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. We can’t afford more property taxes.

Every effort is being made by officials to inform and educate the public regarding the proposed $818-million transit system but we already have reliable rapid bus transit in operation that does connect the Kitchener and Waterloo area with Cambridge.

Rapid bus transit, along with Grand River Transit bus services, is very flexible and can adjust to any road detours that become necessary.

They can add more buses and increase scheduling time, especially during the increase in ridership, with the ability to implement and expand more routes, when and where this is necessary.

Ann Marie Bacon
Kitchener

Good deal for Kitchener, by Dale Ross

May 20, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Waterloo Region claims the cost of the recommended light rail transit system is only an incremental $25 per year for the next seven years for the average home assessed at $254,000. This will result in an annual tax increase of $175 in 2018.

However, averages can be deceiving and hide some interesting facts. The average assessment in Kitchener is $208,000, Cambridge $214,000 and $295,000 in Waterloo. Therefore, I calculate that the 2018 tax increase will be $152, $156 and $216 respectively.

This means that total incremental taxes during this period will be $600 for residents of Kitchener, $620 for Cambridge and $852 for Waterloo. These figures assume that there are no cost overruns, which would be a first for a government project of this magnitude.

Is it any wonder that Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr is such a strong supporter of light rail transit? Light rail would allow him to revitalize his city’s core — after several other failed attempts — while Cambridge and Waterloo pay for the majority of it.

Dale Ross
Waterloo

Being railroaded, by Ted Parkinson

May 19, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

Citizens have been poorly served by the transit planners. After all the concerns raised, these folks have given us only two options: light rail transit (in many different forms) or a rapid bus system they claim won’t do the job. They also claim we will have to rebuild all our roads for the bus option and this will prevent us from easily moving to light rail a few years later.

What about articulated buses? Or buses that stop at every other stop? Or the other options smaller cities have chosen? Why aren’t more people angry about this lack of vision?

Light rail transit is basically a replacement for the iExpress, except it is less flexible and would drop me off further from work and from the mall. Over $800 million later, it would be quieter, and a couple of minutes faster, but not as convenient. As for Waterloo, some parking spaces will be lost on King Street.

I resent being railroaded into choosing so quickly from limited options.

Ted Parkinson
Kitchener

Not the way to go, by Wanda Hoffman

May 18, 2011
Waterloo Regional Record © 2009 Torstar Corporation

I am opposed to light rail transit. We simply cannot afford it.

Where is the money going to come from? Taxes.

Waterloo regional council should put its transit proposal to a referendum.

An article in the Nov. 2 Record, pertaining to Waterloo city council said it all: “Councillors elected Oct. 25 met for the first time Monday for an orientation session. They said that they heard loud and clear on the doorstep that residents oppose light rail transit (LRT), a plan endorsed by the outgoing city council.

“ ‘There’s a sense in the community that LRT is not the way to go,’ ” Coun. Mark Whaley said.

Wanda Hoffman
Waterloo

LRT debate has been biased and botched, by Scott J. Abrams

May 17, 2011
Waterloo Chronicle