Hey there! Looks like your browser is out of date. Please upgrade to the latest version, or try Firefox. If you have stylesheets disabled this message is in error, please continue and thanks for visiting.

TriTAG Blog

TriTAG Pub Night and Idea Swap

Posted February 3rd, 2012 by Duncan Clemens

On Tuesday, February 21st, TriTAG will be hosting an informal drop-in to get in touch with members of the community, and for people to share with us their concerns and ideas in the realm of transit and active transportation in the Region of Waterloo.

If you’d like to stop by for some pub fare and friendly conversation, feel free to join us at any time between 5 and 9 pm at the 3rd floor boardroom of Barley Works (Huether Hotel), at King & Princess in uptown Waterloo. Bring your ideas! We will have a digital projector set up for those who may want to put something on a larger screen.

Visit this link for the Facebook Event Page. We hope to see you soon!

LRT Procurement Recommendation Released

Posted January 27th, 2012 by Michael Druker

The Region has released its staff report recommending an LRT procurement strategy, which will determine the approach used to design, build, and operate the system. More specifically, it recommends a public-private partnership, with extensive private sector responsibility. See the report for full details.

On Tuesday, January 31, at 2pm, Deloitte (the Region’s consultant) will be giving a presentation at a special meeting (see agenda) on the recommendation and its basis. The following Tuesday, February 7, at 6pm will be the public meeting on LRT procurement. Regional Council will make the final decision on February 8.

Do you have an opinion on how the Region should build and operate LRT, and on the recommendation? Then make sure to contact your Regional Councillors to express your opinion, and consider being a delegation at the February 7 public meeting.

More LRT Meetings, and Why It’s Important To Go

Posted January 9th, 2012 by Tim Mollison

It’s that time again: the Rapid Transit team has sent out notices of the Transit Project Assessment meetings to be held on January 24, 25, and 26:

24th Jan, 3-8pm: First United Church, King and William, Waterloo
25th Jan, 3-8pm: Region of Waterloo Headquarters, 150 Frederick, Kitchener
26th Jan, 3-8pm: United Kingdom Club, 35 International Village Drive, Cambridge

Speculation aside about whether or not there will be cookies, these meetings are important because they discuss what impacts LRT construction/operation will have on the environment. With parts of the LRT route being near floodplains, being next to or on top of the Laurel Creek tunnel through Uptown Waterloo, and running through some parkland, it will be very important for the Region to explain to the public how environmental impacts of the project are to be mitigated and how an incident of provincial significance can be avoided (the Laurel Creek runs into the Grand River, and that’s where Brantford gets its drinking water from), and how any contract for construction and/or operation will ensure high quality transport for the citizens of Waterloo Region while taking the health and well-being of our neighbours downstream into account.

So with so much on the line, an informed public, and the feedback it provides, are very important here. Please take an hour out of your busy schedule to attend one of these information meetings above, and continue to be an active participant in the affairs of your local government.

RELEASE: TriTAG will not support LRT operated by a private-sector monopoly

Posted December 7th, 2011 by Tim Mollison

WATERLOO REGION – In light of the release of preliminary Waterloo Region plans for LRT procurement, the Tri-Cities Transport Action Group (TriTAG) made clear today that it will not support a privately-operated LRT system for Waterloo Region. While TriTAG has been one of the key supporters for Light Rail Transit (LRT) for Waterloo Region, it will not stand for a 30-year private sector monopoly on LRT operations.

The Region’s report indicates a “preliminary preferred procurement option” of a Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM) Public-Private Partnership (P3), procured through the Infrastructure Ontario crown corporation. Waterloo Region has never completed public infrastructure using a P3 model, and Infrastructure Ontario has no complete implementations of a DBFOM urban transit project. Having just released the preliminary option, Waterloo Region nevertheless intends to finalize procurement plans by January, with no apparent plans to engage the community on this subject.

“Whether or not to hand over the Region’s single most important, and single most expensive, piece of municipal infrastructure to a private business for 30 years should be a major community conversation”, said Michael Druker, a founding member of TriTAG. “however, how this is being handled suggests that this crucial issue is meant to fly under the radar, and we do not believe this is appropriate.”

In expressing its view on private operation, TriTAG hopes to launch the community conversation that the Region appears intent on avoiding. The community can engage their regional councillors in this conversation by visiting http://tritag.ca/m/lrt.

“We understand the need to incentivize the private sector to deliver high-quality infrastructure in a timely manner,” said Tim Mollison, a founding member of TriTAG, “but granting a 30-year operating monopoly to corporate interests who have no political accountability to the community is not the kind of solution that benefits Waterloo Region in the long term.”

TriTAG does not object to design-build-finance-maintain P3’s with public consultation, as bids are driven down by private sector competition and maintenance requirements ensure quality control standards are met. This, however, does not extend to a 30-year operations contract. After such a contract is awarded, there is no longer any competition for the private operator.

“Awarding a so-called ‘Operating P3’ to the private sector would endow this private company $818 million to build this LRT line and then reward the same company a monopoly to profit from its operation,” said Duncan Clemens, a founding member of TriTAG. “The focus of the private sector is usually on maximizing profit, and not public benefit. The community support that LRT has received over the past several years will be right out the window, as a privately-operated LRT line would be less a public good and more a publically-funded private cookie jar.”

Privatization of this kind often results in poor private sector performance, with later public demands for expensive buy-backs by the municipality. Examples can be found in Auckland, New Zealand, and the London Underground P3 disaster. In Melbourne, as was strikingly explained in Toronto, privatization let to enormous increases in costs. Closer to home, Highway 407 is a familiar example – what should be a public good is instead used to gouge the public to maximize profits for private shareholders.

“These are untested waters for Waterloo Region, and the risk is absolutely huge,” said Mollison. “The point of private operation is usually to shift risk to the private company, but that’s only on paper. In practice, this can backfire – the company can walk away, and leave the public on the hook for much more than it bargained for. This kind of P3 would be a ticking time-bomb for the taxpayers of Waterloo Region.”

York Region’s bus system may be cited as an example of effective private delivery of transit, but Veolia Transport, the multinational corporation with 60% of York’s service contract, has such a focus on its profits over the public interest that it has refused to negotiate with the drivers’ union, leaving many York Region commuters without service for over 6 weeks and counting. Another example of private-sector transit service delivery in Canada is Vancouver’s Canada line, but that line operates without drivers and thus without front-line labour concerns, and corners were cut on the project that have limited opportunities for future expansion.

“Under a private operating contract, we can kiss LRT in Cambridge goodbye,” said Mollison. “Waterloo Region will not have gained any in-house experience to apply to extend the existing line or building new ones. There will simply be no mechanism to improve rapid transit beyond this phase within the next 30 years.”

Practice in other municipalities suggests that GRT will likely have an adversarial relationship with the LRT operator and could include contractual requirements for GRT to operate the same transit service as it does today, however unsuited to the future those routes could be.

“The public believed that a successful first phase would mean LRT extension to Cambridge could start immediately afterwards,” said Clemens. “But with private operation of LRT, leaving Cambridge with buses could be part of the contract.”

Regional Council has been described as supporting LRT as a legacy project. TriTAG believes that this is a good thing, that planning for the future is proper and leaving a legacy to be proud of should be every politician’s goal.

“It’s not enough for Regional Council to build LRT – it needs to build LRT right,” said Mollison. “If it goes down the path of an operating P3, Regional Council will have a rude awakening to a legacy of squandering the Region’s most forward-thinking project in favour of short-term thinking, and corporate profits at public expense.”

“Regional Council should take a step back and really consider whether or not a DBFM approach is all that bad a deal.”


The Tri-Cities Transport Action Group is a community organization with the goal of promoting transit and active transportation (walking and cycling) within Waterloo Region. TriTAG is composed entirely of volunteers, and is exclusively donation-funded by members of the Waterloo Region community. For more information on this issue and other transportation issues in Waterloo Region, please visit http://tritag.ca

For media inquiries, please contact Tim Mollison at (226) 476-1313, x 801.

Underwhelming Start to GO Train Service

Posted November 27th, 2011 by Michael Druker

On Friday, the province finally announced the schedule for GO trains in Kitchener and Guelph. They’ll be starting on Monday, December 19th — and the Georgetown Line will become the Kitchener Line. A trip from Kitchener to Toronto is two hours each way and a round trip costs $29.20. Kitchener to Guelph is 22 minutes and a round trip costs $12.60. VIA is more expensive, but provides faster runs during other parts of the day – no word yet on any combined GO/VIA fares nor for that matter on any fare discounts with Grand River Transit.

Combined GO/VIA schedule (eastbound)
Kitchener Guelph Brampton Toronto – Bloor Toronto – Union
GO (Mon-Fri) 05:52 06:14 07:05 07:38 07:53
VIA (Mon-Fri) 06:29 06:57 07:44 - 08:20
GO (Mon-Fri) 07:10 07:32 08:21 08:53 09:08
VIA (Mon-Sun) 09:10 09:42 10:22 - 10:50
VIA (Mon-Sun) 21:35 22:07 22:51 - 23:20
Combined GO/VIA schedule (westbound)
Toronto – Union Toronto – Bloor Brampton Guelph Kitchener
VIA (Mon-Sun) 10:55 - 11:29 12:08 12:36
GO (Mon-Fri) 16:45 16:54 17:30 18:18 18:42
VIA (Mon-Sun) 17:40 - 18:14 18:52 19:20
GO (Mon-Fri) 17:45 17:54 18:30 19:18 19:42
VIA (Mon-Fri, Sun) 22:10 - 22:45 23:29 23:57
GO Train testing in Kitchener

GO train in Kitchener (Photo: Gord Spence via Flickr)

Judging by how much the coverage of Friday’s announcement has been linked and discussed, there is much enthusiasm for GO trains finally rolling into Kitchener. But local politicians clearly are not thrilled with Kitchener being treated as a bedroom community for Toronto. The Globe has written about the frustration that the new service does nothing for commuters from the GTA into Waterloo Region, who Communitech says are now more numerous than the reverse. And as our survey helps to show, the general public has a keen interest in travelling to Toronto on weekends – something for which GO Transit has no apparent plans.

But more problematic than a limited train service to start is that GO is not rolling out bus service on the corridor during off-peak times and the reverse direction. Officials from GO and Metrolinx are quoted by CTV as saying that train service will be added and adjusted according to the demand. However, without the bus service there on the same corridor, GO has little means to gauge the demand for anything other than commuter service to Toronto.

Service on Route 25 (between Waterloo Region and Mississauga) is barely relevant to the trips which a Kitchener Line train serves. One can hope that GO will at least have the sense to try running Friday evening and Sunday evening trains for students to/from the GTA, when Route 25 and Greyhound are very busy. GO could even run shuttles from the universities to the train, and replace a dozen buses with a couple of shuttle buses and a couple of trains. Since existing bus ridership is a poor indicator of Kitchener Line demand, GO Transit will need to actually try out service at other times to convince itself of the demand – such as on a weekend.

All that said, there is still reason to think that the trains will be well-used, as I’ve written before. They may prove particularly useful both to occasional commuters to Toronto, but also commuters from Kitchener to Guelph and Brampton. Though here too, GO undermines its utility by having the exorbitant price of $12.60 for a round trip between Kitchener and Guelph — quite a bit more expensive than gas and parking for such a commute by car.

Statement Regarding Uptown LRT Routing

Posted November 7th, 2011 by Michael Druker

Below is the TriTAG statement Duncan Clemens presented tonight to Waterloo City Council, prior to its deliberation about the Region’s preferred approach to LRT routing in Uptown Waterloo. We will present a similar one tomorrow at Waterloo Region’s Planning & Works Committee meeting.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight about what has been a lengthy process. We congratulate other members of the community who have also come tonight to add their voice.

The Tri-Cities Transport Action Group is pleased that the Region of Waterloo has taken the time necessary to carefully explain the Uptown Waterloo routing challenges to the public in its September 27 meeting. This process of engagement was good for the community, and we hope to see more of it as the detailed system design commences. Doing this kind of consultation helps the public take ownership of what will in 2018 become their rapid transit system.

The preferred option helps to address new development in the quickly-growing area of Waterloo surrounded by the new station at King and Allen. In addition, moving one of the two platforms of the station at Willis Way next to the Public Square encourages people to use Waterloo’s main public space and its surroundings. The use of the spur line and the station platform adjacent to the square will allow for the preservation of surface parking on King, traffic flow on Erb, and is truly a best practice in placemaking. The routing will enhance a square that is already a resounding success for the City of Waterloo.

Read the rest of this entry »

Are The Best LRT Options for Uptown Waterloo the Ones Not Being Considered?

Posted October 25th, 2011 by Tim Mollison

Last week’s Planning and Works agenda (PDF) had an update on the Rapid Transit project, and the RT Team has also released a summary of public comments from the September 27 Uptown LRT planning workshop held at Knox Presbyterian Church. Kudos to the Rapid Transit team for attempting to organize what was discussed by 24 distinct groups over the course of three one-hour meetings into a very big, rather unwieldy set of tables.

This meeting was good for the community. LRT through Uptown Waterloo is a pretty contentious issue, because everyone is scared of how it will change the landscape. This meeting did a good job of explaining why the Rapid Transit team selected its preferred option — but didn’t present all of the alternatives available, just the ones being considered by the Rapid Transit team.

With that in mind, TriTAG has produced two additional alternatives for Uptown Waterloo LRT routing that would have no impact to the Waterloo Public Square ice rink, wouldn’t require any buildings to be destroyed, would impact road traffic less than many of the presented options, and would improve the user experience of transit customers in Uptown Waterloo. Read the rest of this entry »

Fare increase plans betray confused priorities

Posted October 23rd, 2011 by Michael Druker

Few people attended Thursday’s consultations about the Grand River Transit 2011-2014 business plan. Which is unfortunate, because there’s a real zinger lurking in those plans, as I mentioned in our post on them. Over the next three years, GRT wants to raise fares by 16%, 23%, or 30%. Don’t think a fare increase is warranted? Tough luck, as GRT isn’t talking about any option of keeping fares matched to inflation. If you’re concerned about this, make sure to submit your comments on the business plan and contact your Regional Councillors.

Why fare increases? To reach 50% cost recovery from fares, apparently — from the current 37%. Why 50% cost recovery? Who knows. Chris Klein has some speculation over at Waterloons. I saw and heard nothing to indicate that this figure isn’t arbitrary.

Let’s be clear, we’re not opposed to increasing GRT’s farebox recovery rates. And we’re not necessarily opposed to fare increases, particularly if their purpose is to substantially improve service. But these fare increases look like fare increases for the sake of fare increases. It’s fare increases because we can, because “people will ride anyway”, and because “see, other cities have higher fares!”.

Which, well, is not convincing. On the one hand, the Region claims to want to get far more people using transit. But considering transit demand as static and transit riders as expendable is counterproductive, to put it mildly. Read the rest of this entry »

Three Years of Thinking Small at GRT

Posted October 19th, 2011 by Michael Druker

Tomorrow from 4:30pm to 7:30pm Grand River Transit is holding public consultation centres in Kitchener (150 Frederick St) and Cambridge (Cambridge Centre) on its 2011-2014 business plan. See the GRT site for details and for an outline of the current proposal and an online feedback survey. (Some more information, including maps, is in the report on page 19 of this month’s Planning & Works Committee agenda.) If you can, please attend a session in person — but in any case, please send your comments in.

To me, the outline strongly suggests that GRT (and by extension, Waterloo Region) is already giving up on the Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP). It’s giving up on making major changes to the bus network, and limiting itself to tweaks here and there, hoping for LRT to come along and make everything better. GRT leaves changes of substance to beyond a three-year horizon. The RTMP aims to increase the transit mode share from 4% of peak hour trips to 15% by 2031. If that happens, it will be no thanks to GRT’s current plans. Read the rest of this entry »

East-west Mobility in South Kitchener

Posted October 6th, 2011 by Michael Druker

Last night I presented to Regional Council on behalf of TriTAG regarding the plans for extending River Road across Highway 8 and Hidden Valley in south Kitchener. See the agenda (PDF) for the staff report and recommendation. Below is the text of my written submission. Other presentations focused on the environmental impacts, the cost, and alternative alignments. In a 13:2 vote Council went ahead with this step of the planning process, but several indicated reservations and there seemed to be some interest in the suggestions in my presentation and those of others.

I would like to express TriTAG’s disagreement with the direction being taken on the River Road extension project.

We do not believe that there has been serious consideration of alternatives for increasing capacity for east-west movement of people in that part of Kitchener. We do not believe that expanding capacity for the movement of vehicles in this corridor at great cost is appropriate – not to mention the environmental costs, both local and Region-wide. However, if capacity for vehicle movement has to be increased, we believe there are better alternatives which have not been considered. Read the rest of this entry »