Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit
#31
Tom Galloway will be talking about Phase 2 on the Eric Drozd Show this morning on 570 News, at 10:05am. (That's 570 on the AM radio, or listen online).
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
#32
Host said, of phase 1, "expected to start service in late 2018"

Galloway said, of phase 1, "starting in early 2018"

Galloway expects full funding from feds/province (but council hasn't taken a position that it's that way or the highway).

Reminded people that moving people is a key part of ION, but that redevelopment incentivization and as a planning tool is the prime factor, which gets the biggest points in rating route options.

Hinted that announcement coming soon regarding delivery of the first train.

Post-Galloway callers:
"But no one will ride it!"
"That's still our money, and this would be a wasteful gamble!"
"Are we Beverly St residents going to be expropriated?"
Reply
#33
I wonder if it is worth calling in to this type of show to voice support. People who are listening would get the impression that everyone is against this project just listening to the callers.
Reply
#34
(02-13-2017, 11:09 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I wonder if it is worth calling in to this type of show to voice support.  People who are listening would get the impression that everyone is against this project just listening to the callers.

Of course it is worth it, your voice and say is always important in a democratic society, you might feel it was for not...
Reply
#35
(02-13-2017, 11:17 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: Of course it is worth it, your voice and say is always important in a democratic society, you might feel it was for not...

My question is mostly WRT is it worth my time. Would such a call actually serve to change people's minds, or would they just call me a shill for the "city".
Reply
#36
/\ Who cares what they think?

Even if the majority of listeners are anti-LRT/transit, your (or anyone's) voice supporting the project will offer some balance to the argument. They will feel a little less assured that their view is the consensus. I think that's a good thing.
Reply
#37
It's absolutely important to let politicians and the public know that some people support planning endeavours. It can be hard for politicians to stand up for decisions when it might seem (even if it is false) that there is only opposition. Similarly, it can be easier to line up against something if it seems (however falsely) that there is no support for it. The latter can often be seen at smaller scale planning decisions, where local neighbours to a development line up against it, but of course no one has bought a new unit or used a new facility, etc., and has convincing ability to stand up for it.
Reply
#38
(02-13-2017, 10:10 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Host said, of phase 1, "expected to start service in late 2018"

Galloway said, of phase 1, "starting in early 2018"

Galloway expects full funding from feds/province (but council hasn't taken a position that it's that way or the highway).

Reminded people that moving people is a key part of ION, but that redevelopment incentivization and as a planning tool is the prime factor, which gets the biggest points in rating route options.

Hinted that announcement coming soon regarding delivery of the first train.

Post-Galloway callers:
"But no one will ride it!"
"That's still our money, and this would be a wasteful gamble!"
"Are we Beverly St residents going to be expropriated?"

Was there anything about Phase 2?
Reply
#39
(02-13-2017, 02:41 PM)DHLawrence Wrote:
(02-13-2017, 10:10 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Host said, of phase 1, "expected to start service in late 2018"

Galloway said, of phase 1, "starting in early 2018"

Galloway expects full funding from feds/province (but council hasn't taken a position that it's that way or the highway).

Reminded people that moving people is a key part of ION, but that redevelopment incentivization and as a planning tool is the prime factor, which gets the biggest points in rating route options.

Hinted that announcement coming soon regarding delivery of the first train.

Post-Galloway callers:
"But no one will ride it!"
"That's still our money, and this would be a wasteful gamble!"
"Are we Beverly St residents going to be expropriated?"

Was there anything about Phase 2?

Bolded points are about phase 2.
Reply
#40
(02-10-2017, 02:47 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The question about the Preston stop is, how does the neighbourhood respond? They should be being asked about redevelopment and intensification. If they are insistent on not having any of that, then the stop, frankly, can go too. It's already listed as the worst one (IIRC) for any kind of intra- or inter-modal transfers, so the only incentive for going to Preston would be to welcome Preston into a future built for all of us.

It also opens a future LRT route connection along King Street and Coronation from Eagle to Regional Road 24.  

Phase 3 or 4?
Reply
#41
(02-10-2017, 02:47 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The question about the Preston stop is, how does the neighbourhood respond? They should be being asked about redevelopment and intensification. If they are insistent on not having any of that, then the stop, frankly, can go too. It's already listed as the worst one (IIRC) for any kind of intra- or inter-modal transfers, so the only incentive for going to Preston would be to welcome Preston into a future built for all of us.

I don't know that residents should have that kind of control over their city. It's kind of a question of at what point NIMBYism becomes reasonable.

On the other hand, if this group of residents is willing to and able to mobilize effective resistance to redevelopment, than that should be considered in the value estimation of the stop.
Reply
#42
If residents shouldn't have control over their city, who should?

Your second point makes sense to me. But it's not that they are able to "mobilize effective resistance" to development that should matter: what should be important is if they want it or not. If Preston (or anything other potential station) is being included mostly for redevelopment purposes, and the residents don't want redevelopment, why force it on them? Especially if there are other station areas where residents and landowners are interested in redevelopment opportunities.
Reply
#43
Perhaps, at the very least, given the crossing debacle at the south end of Phase 1, the citizens will be able to point out where they like to cross the proposed Phase 2 corridor when they aren't in a car?
Reply
#44
(02-21-2017, 01:12 PM)MidTowner Wrote: If residents shouldn't have control over their city, who should?

Your second point makes sense to me. But it's not that they are able to "mobilize effective resistance" to development that should matter: what should be important is if they want it or not. If Preston (or anything other potential station) is being included mostly for redevelopment purposes, and the residents don't want redevelopment, why force it on them? Especially if there are other station areas where residents and landowners are interested in redevelopment opportunities.

That's the point. If Preston wants to have intensification around its core, and is willing to welcome people in non-two-storey buildings, then it can make sense. If they aren't willing to accept intensification, then LRT should not be stopping there. Residents should be a part of the process of city-building, but I truly believe that if you want to live in a core area, and have access to high quality core services, the tradeoff you must accept some form of is densification and intensification of the area. It's why I generally do not like the reactions which come out of most urban neighbourhoods in Waterloo and Kitchener. Similarly, if the Galt reaction to the Gaslight district, which has been an opposition to density, continues within Galt, you start to lose the reason for heading into Cambridge at all.
Reply
#45
I was responding to what danbrotherston wrote about "NIMBYs." I think you're right that, if residents of Preston in general don't want to see intensification, that's a strong argument against locating the stop there. I hope that the process is made open to those sorts of opinions without antagonism towards them: the more open everyone is upfront about what it means to be near an Ion station, the better the planning can proceed.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)