Waterloo Region Connected
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit (/showthread.php?tid=14)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - cherrypark - 09-11-2025

(09-07-2025, 12:59 PM)bravado Wrote:
(09-05-2025, 02:20 PM)cherrypark Wrote: At this point just do the BRT for less, hope that GO to Cambridge gets approved, and live to fight for whatever Phase 3 would have been within KW.

If the policy of some is "let's cheap out on Cambridge so we can do the nice thing in KW later", then this Region is cooked politically. City-building for me, but not for thee. I can't adequately explain how insulting this is - as if a few bridges over flat, seismically-stable land is akin to building a new Ancient Wonder of the World. But I get it, wealthy tech and university people need their train and the more modest working people on Hespeler Road should just settle for a bus because they don't deserve the same as us. If only they took the effort to go to public meetings at 2PM on a tuesday like us! They don't deserve the same clean train as others because they made the mistake of trying to start their life and buy a house in the wrong year and in the wrong city.

All of North America can't do public procurement anymore. If Phase 2 is twice as expensive as it should be, then Phase 3 will be too. As will the next hospital, and school, and highway widening - but the bill for those doesn't really get local headlines so nobody talks about it - only transit. Fuck, they're keeping the bill for Highway 413 secret so we can keep fighting for the scraps in the transit world while the suburbanites get blank cheques for whatever they like.

To be clear - I would absolutely rather and advocate for getting a Phase 2 built and don't think Cambridge isn't deserving. I just don't see what the political path is when Cambridge council seems disinterested or even opposed and whatever costing is being used is making it seem like constructing a modern wonder. The skip this to get KW service later is more a worry that Phase 2 is becoming/will be such an albatross that the political will to do more beyond that will be toast for good. Would much prefer to be wrong.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 09-12-2025

A big part of the reason for the high phase 2 costs stems from having to cross the river and the 401. That would have been expensive even if built at the same time as phase 2.

That makes me think that "proper" BRT (with protected lanes) would be far less expensive, as it could potentially leverage existing bridges or underpasses. It's still much faster than buses in transit, and semi-permanent (routes not easily changed). Not as "nice" as LRT, but would that make sense as a compromise? Maybe a better routing could even be achieved?

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - bravado - 09-12-2025

(09-12-2025, 03:47 PM)tomh009 Wrote: A big part of the reason for the high phase 2 costs stems from having to cross the river and the 401. That would have been expensive even if built at the same time as phase 2.

That makes me think that "proper" BRT (with protected lanes) would be far less expensive, as it could potentially leverage existing bridges or underpasses. It's still much faster than buses in transit, and semi-permanent (routes not easily changed). Not as "nice" as LRT, but would that make sense as a compromise? Maybe a better routing could even be achieved?

But even that statement is accepting that the cost estimates are normal. We're getting fullytunneled underground metro costs per km for an above-ground, normal concrete light rail system. The Speed River isn't the grand canyon, but the price seems to imply that it is.

$210M per km is a wild cost estimate for completely above-ground light rail on flat land and I don't want anyone to treat it like that's "just the cost of doing business".

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Kodra24 - 09-12-2025

(09-12-2025, 04:20 PM)bravado Wrote:
(09-12-2025, 03:47 PM)tomh009 Wrote: A big part of the reason for the high phase 2 costs stems from having to cross the river and the 401. That would have been expensive even if built at the same time as phase 2.

That makes me think that "proper" BRT (with protected lanes) would be far less expensive, as it could potentially leverage existing bridges or underpasses. It's still much faster than buses in transit, and semi-permanent (routes not easily changed). Not as "nice" as LRT, but would that make sense as a compromise? Maybe a better routing could even be achieved?

But even that statement is accepting that the cost estimates are normal. We're getting fullytunneled underground metro costs per km for an above-ground, normal concrete light rail system. The Speed River isn't the grand canyon, but the price seems to imply that it is.

$210M per km is a wild cost estimate for completely above-ground light rail on flat land and I don't want anyone to treat it like that's "just the cost of doing business".

It's the cost of doing business "in Canada"

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 09-12-2025

(09-12-2025, 04:20 PM)bravado Wrote:
(09-12-2025, 03:47 PM)tomh009 Wrote: That makes me think that "proper" BRT (with protected lanes) would be far less expensive, as it could potentially leverage existing bridges or underpasses. It's still much faster than buses in transit, and semi-permanent (routes not easily changed). Not as "nice" as LRT, but would that make sense as a compromise? Maybe a better routing could even be achieved?

But even that statement is accepting that the cost estimates are normal. We're getting fullytunneled underground metro costs per km for an above-ground, normal concrete light rail system. The Speed River isn't the grand canyon, but the price seems to imply that it is.

There is Speed River and Grand River. Also elevated across the Fairview Mall parking lot, Fairway Road and the CP Rail line. Elevated crossing over the Hwy 8 exit ramp. Elevated on Shantz Hill Road. Elevated again over the CP Rail crossing first and then CN Rail.

So, while not tunnelled, the amount of bridges and elevated sections is quite significant, compared to essentially zero in phase 1. I'm not qualified to assess how much of the cost impact is due to these bridges and elevated segments, though, how much to construction cost inflation, and how much to something else.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 09-12-2025

(09-12-2025, 04:27 PM)Kodra24 Wrote:
(09-12-2025, 04:20 PM)bravado Wrote: $210M per km is a wild cost estimate for completely above-ground light rail on flat land and I don't want anyone to treat it like that's "just the cost of doing business".

It's the cost of doing business "in Canada"

Phase 1 was built "in Canada", too, at a very comparable cost to a similar European project.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 09-12-2025

(09-12-2025, 05:37 PM)tomh009 Wrote: compared to essentially zero in phase 1.

Phase 1 had a major component - the King Street underpass of the rail line. But very little otherwise, certainly.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 09-12-2025

(09-12-2025, 06:12 PM)KevinL Wrote:
(09-12-2025, 05:37 PM)tomh009 Wrote: compared to essentially zero in phase 1.

Phase 1 had a major component - the King Street underpass of the rail line. But very little otherwise, certainly.

And even that is properly charged mostly to the road network. The LRT tracks only add a couple of lanes to the length of the bridge / width of the underpass.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ZEBuilder - 09-13-2025

(09-12-2025, 04:20 PM)bravado Wrote:
(09-12-2025, 03:47 PM)tomh009 Wrote: A big part of the reason for the high phase 2 costs stems from having to cross the river and the 401. That would have been expensive even if built at the same time as phase 2.

That makes me think that "proper" BRT (with protected lanes) would be far less expensive, as it could potentially leverage existing bridges or underpasses. It's still much faster than buses in transit, and semi-permanent (routes not easily changed). Not as "nice" as LRT, but would that make sense as a compromise? Maybe a better routing could even be achieved?

But even that statement is accepting that the cost estimates are normal. We're getting fullytunneled underground metro costs per km for an above-ground, normal concrete light rail system. The Speed River isn't the grand canyon, but the price seems to imply that it is.

$210M per km is a wild cost estimate for completely above-ground light rail on flat land and I don't want anyone to treat it like that's "just the cost of doing business".

Go look at the post I made last week but the cost we have per km is one of the more sane cost estimates of LRTs in Ontario, at least for ones that are comparable. Phase 2 is arguably even more complicated then some of those and still comes in cheaper so it is arguably the cost of doing business. 

210M is no where near fully tunneled metro fyi. The line 2 extension is about 1 billion dollars per km. Line 1 extension to Vaughan was roughly half a billion per km so by no means are we getting fully tunneled metro costs.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ZEBuilder - 09-13-2025

(09-12-2025, 05:37 PM)tomh009 Wrote: There is Speed River and Grand River. Also elevated across the Fairview Mall parking lot, Fairway Road and the CP Rail line. Elevated crossing over the Hwy 8 exit ramp. Elevated on Shantz Hill Road. Elevated again over the CP Rail crossing first and then CN Rail.

So, while not tunnelled, the amount of bridges and elevated sections is quite significant, compared to essentially zero in phase 1. I'm not qualified to assess how much of the cost impact is due to these bridges and elevated segments, though, how much to construction cost inflation, and how much to something else.

The bridges and elevated sections add significant cost compared to road running the LRT but that is to be expected.

The bridges themselves aren't inherently difficult to construct or design, but the type of bridge and then the soil conditions will both change how difficult it is to construct and thus impact the cost. Most of the time on short to medium span bridges the preferred design is an integral or semi integral abutment bridge. These don't have an expansion joint, thus minimizing maintenance costs, but instead you generally need deep foundations, again this is soil dependent, semi integral can be found on strip footings but is again soil dependent. Other bridge types can utilize shallow foundations but depending on the geotechnical conditions may require deep foundations. So long story short bridge type can change cost significantly just by picking one bridge type over another. This isn't something decided until detailed design which is still a ways away. Regardless soil conditions will govern the foundation type and can quickly inflate costs.

***In Ontario for large projects (bridges, infrastructure, highways) the foundation work is generally two fold. A geotechnical engineering team will be brought in to determine  the surficial conditions, they will produce the factual information report regarding the soil/rock, everything one needs to design a foundation, the report may or may not include foundation recommendations. The project then goes to tender with the factual report, expected loadings (from the structural engineer) with a stipulation that the contractor retains an engineer to design the foundation based on what was provided. This moves risk to the contractor and is extremely typical of large infrastructure projects. However if a design says the contractor must use a 2.5m caisson the risk is on the engineer writing that stipulation.***

Now for our bridges it's good to understanding the surficial conditions around the bridge sites to determine what may make the foundations complicated and potentially drive up the cost.

From Fairway to the Grand River bedrock is rather deep, there is minimal likelihood of having a bridge footing founded on bedrock, hence you will likely have caissons or H piles, this alone means more work and more cost. From the Grand River to Sportsworld the bedrock is shallower but still deep enough that you aren't excavating to bedrock for a footing so again likely will require caissons or H piles. Now around the Speed River and north of Eagle St where the remaining 3 bridges are bedrock is rather shallow, it is entirely possible that those bridges can be built with strip footings provided the bedrock is shallow enough that excavation isn't horrible. Obviously one would need to know the actual soil conditions before one designs something but it is certainly possible with how shallow bedrock is in that area that it could be relatively simple foundations, but again depending on the bridge type you may need to have a more complex foundation and hence more cost.

For the bridge crossing Fairway and the CP tracks (10+180 to 10+690) you're looking at a 510m long bridge that would likely need to be found on deep foundations. For the bridge next to the River Rd extension (11+640 to 11+770) you're looking at a 130m long bridge through the same soils that would likely need to be found on deep foundations. For the bridge crossing the Grand River and running along 8 (12+010 to 13+480) you're looking at a 1.47km long bridge through soils that would likely require deep foundations. For the bridge crossing the Speed River (16+460 to 17+000) you're looking at 540m where bedrock is relatively shallow, so strip footings could be possible however one has to be careful about scour so you may see a mix of both even though bedrock is shallow. For the bridge crossing the CP tracks (17+650 to 18+090) you're looking at 440m on shallow bedrock so strip footings may be possible. Then the last one is the CN tracks (19+760 to 19+850) so 90m again on some shallow bedrock so strip footings could be used.

Geotech Report references:
Low Cut and High Fill FIDR Highway 8 widening north and south of the Grand River: FIDR Highway Low Cut/High Fill
High Mast Lighting FIDR Highway 8 widening Grand River to Maple Grove: FIDR High Mast Lighting
CNR Overhead @ 401 10 lane widening: FIDR CNR overhead widening
Speed River Bridges @ 401 10 lane widening: FIDR Speed River Bridges Widening (Not very useful but reflects CNR overhead bedrock and OGS data)
102 Fountain Geotech (Preston Springs): CVD Preliminary Geotech Report
Ontario Geological Survey Bedrock data: OGSEarth

All in all it's 3.18km of bridges most are 10m (33ft) or so from the ground surface to top of track but some range up to 17m (56ft). Of which 2.11 km will likely require deep foundations to adequately support, the remaining 1.07km will likely see a mix of shallow and deep footings. So foundations alone are going to be an incredible cost. There's a reason the Preston to Galt cost estimate is 960 million less, you're avoiding 2.65 km of bridge (83% of the total Fairway to Galt bridge length).

For comparisons sake the Frederick St Bridge replacement is about 30 million dollars for less than 100m, so our 3.18km of bridge would be about 950 million dollars, obviously Frederick is wider but it is way simpler in terms of not needing so many foundation elements. Or even the Roseville Rd replacement, its narrower and is about 17 million dollars for about 70 meters, so our 3.18km would be about 800 million, so again not a crazy cost estimate at all when you're looking at 17km of LRT track and catenary, 3.18 km of bridges, 2km of retaining wall, and roughly 5.4km of road reconstruction (3.4km of Hespeler, 1.3km of King St/Shantz Hill, 700m of road around Preston (side streets, King and Eagle). 

The Surrey-Langley SkyTrain extension is roughly 375 million per km and is entirely elevated so given ours is only 177 million per km and 20% is elevated its not an insane cost.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ac3r - 09-15-2025

(09-07-2025, 12:30 AM)Acitta Wrote: When I ride the ION, it is always crowded. I don't know why you say it sucked. There are European cities comparable in size to Waterloo Region that have tram systems. I don't know why you think that it can't work in Cambridge. We spend billions of dollars on roads that become clogged with traffic because we don't provide more efficient alternatives.

Have you ever lived in a European country? There is nothing to compare between Canadian cities and European cities. The ION sucks because it's slow and designed to cost as little money as possible because it was the only way people were going to let the region go ahead with it.

It just makes zero sense to expand it into Cambridge. Most people in that city do not want it. The city government does not want it. The majority of tax payers in the region don't want it. Increasingly, the people that did want it no longer want it. The people that do want it seem to be aware of the fact that it's a total ripoff, so now they're proposing building it in even smaller phases because six 1 billion dollar invoices is psychologically more palatable than one 6 billion dollar invoice. Or more hilariously, building an LRT in Cambridge that isn't even connected to the existing LRT...lmao.

I can only hope sanity prevails and they bin this terrible idea. But if there is one thing this region excels at, it's making terrible choices. I fully expect them to spend years debating, burning through millions of dollars on studies and consultants, approve the project, then spend 15+ years dragging out the construction and inflating the bill far beyond what we can afford.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Acitta - 09-15-2025

(09-15-2025, 03:16 PM)ac3r Wrote:
(09-07-2025, 12:30 AM)Acitta Wrote: When I ride the ION, it is always crowded. I don't know why you say it sucked. There are European cities comparable in size to Waterloo Region that have tram systems. I don't know why you think that it can't work in Cambridge. We spend billions of dollars on roads that become clogged with traffic because we don't provide more efficient alternatives.

Have you ever lived in a European country? There is nothing to compare between Canadian cities and European cities. The ION sucks because it's slow and designed to cost as little money as possible because it was the only way people were going to let the region go ahead with it.

It just makes zero sense to expand it into Cambridge. Most people in that city do not want it. The city government does not want it. The majority of tax payers in the region don't want it. Increasingly, the people that did want it no longer want it. The people that do want it seem to be aware of the fact that it's a total ripoff, so now they're proposing building it in even smaller phases because six 1 billion dollar invoices is psychologically more palatable than one 6 billion dollar invoice. Or more hilariously, building an LRT in Cambridge that isn't even connected to the existing LRT...lmao.

I can only hope sanity prevails and they bin this terrible idea. But if there is one thing this region excels at, it's making terrible choices. I fully expect them to spend years debating, burning through millions of dollars on studies and consultants, approve the project, then spend 15+ years dragging out the construction and inflating the bill far beyond what we can afford.
No, I have not lived in a European country. I know that they take their public transit much more seriously than car-centric Canadian cities. However, the only people who complain about better public transit are the car-brained idiots who never use it. The ION is well-used, even if it is not as well-designed as it could have been. Public transit, in general, is well-used in the Region. I know, I ride the buses and the ION. If the ION to Cambridge already existed, I would be using it regularly. Going from downtown Kitchener to downtown Cambridge is a much longer trip than going between Kitchener and Waterloo, so extending the ION really makes sense, especially with the booming population numbers in the region. Sadly, at the rate things are progressing, there is a good chance that I will be dead before it goes into operation.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 09-15-2025

(09-15-2025, 03:16 PM)ac3r Wrote: But if there is one thing this region excels at, it's making terrible choices. I fully expect them to spend years debating, burning through millions of dollars on studies and consultants, approve the project, then spend 15+ years dragging out the construction and inflating the bill far beyond what we can afford.

And you think the region is worse in that regard than, say ... Toronto? Seriously?

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 09-15-2025

(09-15-2025, 04:12 PM)Acitta Wrote:
(09-15-2025, 03:16 PM)ac3r Wrote: Have you ever lived in a European country? There is nothing to compare between Canadian cities and European cities. The ION sucks because it's slow and designed to cost as little money as possible because it was the only way people were going to let the region go ahead with it.

No, I have not lived in a European country. I know that they take their public transit much more seriously than car-centric Canadian cities. However, the only people who complain about better public transit are the car-brained idiots who never use it. The ION is well-used, even if it is not as well-designed as it could have been. Public transit, in general, is well-used in the Region.

I grew up in Europe and have lived there for long stretches since then. And I have spent close to two years in Japan, too. The key underlying factor is that European cities generally are, and generally always have been, much more urban than North American cities. As a result, they are far less car-centric, and far more people walk, cycle and take transit--and the same is true in Japan as well.

You hate that fact that the LRT is above ground, but LRT and tram systems are common in Europe as well. But it is indeed driving both ridership and development, roughly meeting its original goals (COVID-19 impacted it along the way).

I don't see any point in arguing this with you any further as there is no way to have a reasoned debate with you on this topic.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - creative - 09-15-2025

… or any other topic!